IP
SESSIONS v. GOULD et al.
63 F. 1001·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1894
Before BEOWN, Circuit Justice, and WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SESSIONS v. GOULD et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 16, 1894.)
Patents-Tneringement—Trunk Fasteners.
The Taylor patent, No. 203,860, for trunk fasteners, construed as to the second claim, which is held to bo valid, and to have been infringed by defendants. Sessions v. Gould, 49 Fed. 855, 60 Fed. 753, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit, Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a bill by John H. Sessions against William B. Could and others for infringement of letters patent No. 203,860, issued May 21, 1878, to Charles A. Taylor, for an “improvement in trunk fixtures,” assigned to complainant June 1, 1878; and letters patent No. 255,122, issued March 1, 1882, to John H. Sessions, Jr., “for trunk fasteners,” assigned to complainant July 1, 1888. The case was heard on motion for a preliminary injunction before Judge Lacombe, who granted an injunction under claim 2 of the Taylor patent of 1878, and the Sessions patent of 1882. 49 Fed. 855. On final hearing, the case was heard before Judge Ooxe, who found the Sessions patent of 1882 invalid, aud sustained the Taylor patent, allowing a decree on claim 2. 60 Fed. 753. From the interlocutory decree granting a permanent injunction under claim 2 of the Taylor patent, defendants appealed to this court.
Arthur v. Briesen, for appellants.
Charles E. Mitchell (John F. Bartlett, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BEOWN, Circuit Justice, and WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We fully agree with the opinion of Judge Lacombe upon the motion for a preliminary injunction in the circuit court in regard to the construction of the second claim of the Taylor patent, and deem 'it unnecessary to add anything to his observations. As, under that construction, the defendants’ trunk fasteners concededly infringe the claim, and the only errors assigned by the appellants are in respect to the questions of construction and infringement, the interlocutory decree appealed .from should be affirmed, with costs.