Australian Knitting Co. v. Gormly
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
Action in equity brought by the Australian Knitting Company against Robert W. Gormly, a manufacturer of knitting machinery, for alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 424,314, granted March 25, 1890, to Peter S. Kinsey, assignor to the complainant, for burr-wheels for knitting machines. These burr-wheels are adapted for knitting machines adapted to produce figured or pattern knitting.
Read the full summary
Action in equity brought by the Australian Knitting Company against Robert W. Gormly, a manufacturer of knitting machinery, for alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 424,314, granted March 25, 1890, to Peter S. Kinsey, assignor to the complainant, for burr-wheels for knitting machines. These burr-wheels are adapted for knitting machines adapted to produce figured or pattern knitting. In the specifications the patentee says: “Burr-wheels of the kind referred to have been previously made which comprised blades set obliquely on the periphery of the burr-wheel hub, and so…
1Opinion of the CourtRay, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). If the interlocutory decree in the Australian Knitting Company v. Wright’s Health Underwear Company is res adjudicata between the Australian Knitting Company and Robert W. Gormly in this action, it will be unnecessary to consider the evidence bearing on the question of the validity of complainant’s patent. The same patent in question there is in controversy here, and the same general question was raised there as here, viz., are United States letters patent No. 424,314, granted March 25, 1890, to P. S. Kinsey, assign- or to the complainant, invalid by reason…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Robbins v. Chicago CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Lovejoy v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Fayerweather v. RitchSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Railroad Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- A. & R. Realty Co. v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1912
- Hills & Co. v. HooverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.