Lalance & Grosjean Manuf'g Co. v. Mosheim

COXE, District Judge.

The decision in the preceding cause (53 Fed. Rep. 375) disposes of this cause also. It is conceded that the defendant sold tbe articles in proof made by tbe Habermann Company. Tbe second claim is intended to cover the product of tbe process described in tbe first claim, and, thus limited, I think it is valid and that tbe defendant has infringed.

Tbe complainant is entitled to tbe usual decree upon tbe second claim