Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 360,070 for a fluid pressure automatic brake mechanism granted to George Westinghouse, Jr., March 29, 1887. On motion for preliminary injunction.
1Opinion of the Court
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
This suit was brought to enjoin an alleged infringement. Upon proofs showing the type of valve which defendant had manufactured and sold before suit brought, it was held that such type did not infringe the patent under the restricted construction given to it by the Supreme Court (Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537, 18 Sup. Ct. 707, 42 L. Ed. 1136), and that defendant’s device was similar to the Boyden valve, possessing a structural feature which that court held differentiated the Boyden valve from the valve of 360,070. Since then defendant has so…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Slessinger v. BuckinghamUnited States Circuit Court · 1883
- Humane Bit Co. v. BarnetU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1902
- Judson Manuf'g Co. v. Burge-Donahoo Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1891
3Cited by5 opinions
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Plymouth Rubber Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1959
- Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christensen Engineering Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904
- Chicago Grain Door Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1905
- Banks Law Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co-Operative Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1905
- Houghton v. Whitin Mach. WorksDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1908