Legal Opinion
Blessing v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 23, 1939PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
My judgment in this cause is—
1. That Claims Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, of which the validity was not questioned, were infringed by the defendant.
2. That Claims Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are not, in my opinion, valid.
3. That, accordingly, there should be an interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff providing for the usual injunction, carrying costs and referring the cause to a master to report to this Court on the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and the profits made by the defendant from the date hereinafter named by reason of the infringement found.
4. The costs allowed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. TorrDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Courson v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920
- E. L. Mansure Co. v. Consolidated Trimming Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blessing v. Gordon Textile Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939