Legal Opinion

Anchor Cap & Closure Corp. v. Pritchard

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 3, 1916PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Equity.- Suit by the Anchor Cap & Closure Corporation against Edward Pritchard. On final hearing.

1Opinion of the Court

LEARNED HAND, District Judge.

There are four patents here in suit which should be treated separately.

Patent 770,751.

[ 1 ] This patent has ,no predecessors, except Kalling’s two patents, 561,792 and 697,491. They differed from Hull’s disclosure, because the bead was deformed by squeezing it against the side of the glass. It makes no difference whether the gasket was of a hard enough con - sistency, so that the nearest edges of the bead never touched the glass, or whether it collapsed so far that a part of the pressure was between metal and glass. In either case, the glass had to hear the whole…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Walker v. GilesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
  2. General Electric Co. v. Independent Electrical Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1927
  2. Wachs v. BalsamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  3. International Banding MacH. Co. v. American Bander Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API