Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus
Decision Date | 11 December 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
Parties | ART METAL WORKS, Inc., v. ABRAHAM & STRAUS, Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Ward, Crosby & Neal, of New York City (Kenneth S. Neal and Joseph Lorenz, both of New York City, of counsel), for complainant-appellant.
Haaren & Barrett, of New York City (David S. Kane, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied December 11, 1939. See 60 S.Ct. 293, 84 L.Ed. ___.
This suit for infringement by the defendant of Claims Nos. 7, 13 and 14 of U. S. Patent No. 1,673,727 to one Aronson through the sale of a cigar lighter known as "Trig-a-lite" came before this court in 1934. Upon that appeal a decree of the District Court dismissing the suit for noninfringement was affirmed on the ground that "Trig-a-lite" was a spring actuated device that did not come within the element of the claims which called for a "rack and gear" or "gear means". Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 639. We have since sustained a petition for review and the cause again comes before us for a rehearing upon the original record.
The Aronson patent also came before this court in a prior suit between the same parties in which Claims 7, 13 and 14 were held valid and infringed by a lighter known as "Roller Bearing." Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus, 2 Cir., 61 F.2d 122. It is argued on behalf of the appellant in the present suit that the "Trig-a-lite" lighter so closely resembles "Roller Bearing" that it falls within the claims and should have been held to infringe on the reasoning and authority of the decision in the prior suit. We think that the decree there is essentially res judicata as to the validity of the claims.
It is argued that the Wolf German Patent No. 221,577, which was not before the court in the prior suit, anticipates Aronson. But this is not so, for the Wolf Patent shows a large cap which is a part of the receptacle. This cap forms a cumbersome outer housing. The lighter has a telescopic shell instead of a finger piece and is little nearer to Aronson than was the British Patent to Bergmann or the Austrian Patent to Hauzenberger which we held in our first opinion did not anticipate the Aronson lighter or deprive it of validity.
The claims read as follows:
In our original opinion describing the patented device and holding the above claims infringed by the Roller Bearing lighters sold by the defendant we said (61 F.2d 122):
We also said in the original opinion that in the "Roller Bearing" lighter the pin employed is: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glass Co v. Co
...join in this opinion. The CHIEF JUSTICE agrees with the result suggested in this dissent. 1 See, e.g., Art Metal Works, Inc., v. Abraham & Strauss, Inc., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 940 and 944; Publicker v. Shallcross, 3 Cir., 106 F.2d 949, 126 A.L.R. 386; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Callicotte, 8 ......
-
Josserand v. Taylor
...of opinion of its views in regard to that issue. For the reasons stated, the petition is denied. 1 See, e. g., Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Strauss, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 940 and 944; Publicker v. Shallcross, 3 Cir., 106 F.2d 949, 126 A.L.R. 386; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Callicotte, 8 Cir.......
-
Joyce, Inc. v. Fern Shoe Co.
...to destroy a contribution to the art which, limited though it be, is yet entitled to protection. See Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Abraham & Straus, 2 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 940. Infringement is not avoided by dividing parts of a combination or by integrating them. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Wor......
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
...file the bills below was accordingly denied. However, adopting by analogy the procedure followed in the cases of Art Metal Works v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 940, and Id., 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 944, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 621, 60 S.Ct. 293, 84 L.Ed. 518, we granted leave to th......