Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1910 |
| Docket Number | 324. |
| Citation | 180 F. 110 |
| Parties | WRIGHT CO. v. HERRING-CURTISS CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Emerson R. Newell (J. Edgar Bull, of counsel), for appellants.
Edmund Wetmore and Williamson & Smith (H. A. Toulmin, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
There is no dispute as to the proposition that the question whether or not there has been infringement of this patent, however broadly it may be construed, depends upon the question whether or not in defendant's machine a tendency to spin or swerve is checked or counteracted by the operation of the vertical rudder. That of course-- on its theoretical and on its practical side-- is a question of fact. The record before us contains numerous affidavits which were not presented until after original decision and which, as both sides state, were admitted upon motion for rehearing without discussion of their contents by the court, but for the purpose of bringing the case more fully before the Court of Appeals.
In this record, upon the question of fact above stated, there is a sharp conflict of evidence, numerous affiants testifying. All their statements are ex parte affidavits made without any opportunity to test their probative force by cross-examination. Under such circumstances, it seems to us, irrespective of any of the other questions in the case, that infringement was not so clearly established as to justify a preliminary injunction. See decisions of this court in Westinghouse v. Montgomery, 139 F. 868, 71 C.C.A. 582; Hall Signal Co. v. General Railway Co., 153 F. 907, 82 C.C.A. 653.
The order is reversed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bissel v. Olson
... ... Co. v. New York & N. J. Water Co. 76 N.J.Eq. 504, 74 A. 970; Gaslight ... Co. v. South River, 77 N.J.Eq. 487, 77 A. 473; Wright ... Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co. 103 C. C. A. 31, 180 F. 110 ... Even on ... final hearing, such an injunction will not be ... ...
-
Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co.
...on the appeal to be relieved from the preliminary injunction, upon this point really hangs the question of infringement. Wright v. Curtiss, 180 F. 110, 103 C.C.A. 31. testified that he had given particular attention in flying to the ailerons of his machine, to acquaint himself with their mo......
-
Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v. Automobile Supply Mfg. Co.
... ... The ... Court of Appeals of this circuit has declared, so recently as ... in the cases of Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co., ... 180 F. 110, 103 C.C.A. 31, ... [193 F. 662] ... and Wright Co. v. Paulhan, 180 F. 112, 103 C.C.A ... 32, that, ... ...
-
Meccano, Limited, v. John Wanamaker, New York
... ... To ... justify a preliminary injunction on the other grounds the ... case ought to be very clear. Wright Co. v ... Herring-Curtiss Co., 180 F. 110, 103 C.C.A. 31. Upon the ... question of copyright infringement and unfair competition, we ... think ... ...
-
Who's Afraid of Section 1498? A Case for Government Patent Use in Pandemics and Other National Crises.
...1903); see also Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co., 177 F. 257, 259 (C.C.W.D.N.Y 1910) (noting Wrights' successful demonstrations), rev'd, 180 F. 110 (C.C.A.2d (50) See Wright, 177 F. at 259-60; Herbert A. Johnson, The Wright Patent Wars and Early American Aviation, 69 J. AIR L. & COM. 2......