Nicholl, Inc. v. Schick Dry Shaver, 8769.
Citation | 98 F.2d 511 |
Decision Date | 11 August 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 8769.,8769. |
Parties | NICHOLL, Inc., v. SCHICK DRY SHAVER, Inc., et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Lyon & Lyon, Frederick S. Lyon, Leonard S. Lyon, and Henry S. Richmond, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and Jesse W. Curtis, Jr., of San Bernardino, Cal., for appellant.
William Gibbs McAdoo, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Abraham Tulin, of New York City, for appellees.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order which, in a patent infringement suit brought by appellees, Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated, Schick Industries, Limited, and Edises, Incorporated, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California against appellant, Nicholl, Incorporated, an inhabitant of that district, enjoined appellant, pendente lite, from manufacturing, selling, advertising or offering for sale any shaving implement embodying the invention covered by patent No. 1,721,5301 and, particularly, the Nicholl Velvet Shaver or the Nicholl Velvet Shaver, Model M.
The sole question is whether, in granting the injunction, the District Court abused its discretion. If not, the order should be affirmed. Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. v. United States Consolidated Seeded Raisin Co., 9 Cir., 182 F. 59, 60.
The patent was issued to Jacob Schick on July 23, 1929, and was by him assigned to one Baker, who in turn assigned it to Schick Industries, Limited, of which Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated, is, in the United States, the sole licensee. Edises, Incorporated, is a sublicensee of Schick Dry Shaver, Incorporated. The title of appellees, as owner, licensee and sublicensee, respectively, is not questioned.
The specifications state:
* * * * *
The patent contains 21 claims, of which only claims 1 and 13 are here involved. They are as follows:
Claims 1 and 13 were construed and, as construed, were held valid by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Schick Dry Shaver v. Dictograph Products Co., 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 643, decided April 12, 1937. They do not appear to have been considered or passed on by any other appellate court. In the Dictograph Case, as in this case, it was argued by defendant that British patent No. 753, issued to one Appleyard in 1914, was a complete anticipation of Schick. The court said (pages 645, 646):
* * *
* * * * * *
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Motoshaver Inc. v. Schick Dry Shaver
...in ordering the injunction pendente lite. On the latter contention this case differs in no material respect from Nicholl, Inc., v. Schick Dry Shaver, 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 511. 1. The suit as against Dalmo is brought without the proper venue in patent infringement cases. There is some confusion o......
-
Marvin Glass & Associates v. DE LUXE TOPPER CORPORATION
...Judgment Although the question of whether a patent is infringed is often a question of fact (see, e.g., Nicholl, Inc. v. Schick Dry Shaver, Inc., 98 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1938)), here the defendants' game, "Silly Safari," can be readily understood without the aid of expert testimony and compar......
-
Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co.
...such flow. 28 Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., supra; Reinharts v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., supra; Nicholl v. Schick Dry Shaver, 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 511, 513. 29 Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U.S. 299, 305, 306, 24 L.Ed. 107; Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 49, 25 L.Ed. 68; Western Well Work......
-
Western Fruit Growers v. United States
...F. 862, 865; Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. v. United States Consolidated Seeded Raisin Co., 9 Cir., 182 F. 59, 60; Nicholl v. Schick Dry Shaver, 9 Cir., 98 F.2d 511.2 No abuse of discretion has been It is said that the appellants named in part (b) never threatened or intended to violate t......