New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car-Spring & Rubber Co.
Decision Date | 13 April 1887 |
Citation | 30 F. 785 |
Parties | NEW YORK BELTING & PACKING CO. v. NEW JERSEY CAR-SPRING & RUBBER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
A. Van Briesen, for complainant.
W.H.L Lee, for defendant.
It is insisted by demurrer to the bill that the patent sued upon is invalid upon its face for want of novelty. In determining the question, the court can only consider such familiar facts as fall within the category of those things of which judicial notice will be taken. The patent is for a "design for a rubber mat." The patentee states in the description that,
The claims are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krell, Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co.
... ... v. Hoke (C.C.) 30 F. 444; N.Y. Belting & P. Co ... v. N.J. Car-Spring & Rubber Co ... 484; Fowler v. City of New York (C.C.) 110 F. 749; Milner ... Seating Co. v ... ...
-
Heaton Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Schlochtmeyer
... ... In ... New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car Spring & ... Rubber Co., 30 F. 785, Judge Wallace held a patent for a ... ...
-
New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car-Spring & Rubber Co.
...1879, for a design for a rubber mat. The patent has twice been before the courts. The circuit court held the patent invalid on demurrer. 30 F. 785. The supreme reversed this decision, in part, holding that the question of novelty should be decided on pleadings and proofs. 137 U.S. 445, 11 S......
-
Streat v. White
... ... United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.July 2, 1888 ... Samuel ... R. Betts, ... or form,' (Packing Co. v. Rubber Co., 24 ... Blatchf. 345, 30 F ... ...