No. 111 | 2d Cir. | Jan 8, 1903
The points raised upon this appeal have been heretofore decided adversely to the appellant by this court in Accumulator Co. v. Brush Co., 2 C.C.A. 682" date_filed="1892-10-04" court="2d Cir." case_name="Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co.">2 C. C. A. 682, 52 Fed. 130, and Thomson-Houston Co. v. Elmira & Horseheads Co., 18 C.C.A. 145" date_filed="1896-01-08" court="2d Cir." case_name="Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.">18 C. C. A. 145, 71 Fed. 406. It is true that when this generic patent was before this court the earlier specific patents had not expired, but the legal propositions involved are not changed by such expiration.
The order is affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Judge Hazel ([C. C.] 117 F. 314" date_filed="1902-06-04" court="None" case_name="Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Buffalo Electric Carriage Co.">117 Fed. 314), which clearly and succinctly states those propositions, and indicates the bearing thereon of- the cases above cited.