Case ID: f_11/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blatchford, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Putnam and another v. Hollender and another.
    
    
      (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    
    March 1, 1882.)
    Practice — Motion for Attachment — Infringement.
    Where it is doubtful whether defendant’s device infringes complainant’s patent, such question is not to be determined in a summary way on a motion for attachment, but must- be tried on pleadings and proofs in a now suit.
    In Equity. Motion for attachment.
    
      A. v. Briesen, for plaintiffs.
    
      F. H. Betts and E. Fitch, for defendants.
    
      
       Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
    
   Blatchford, C. J.

I do not deem it necessary or proper, in deciding this motion for attachment, to say more than that, on the construction heretofore given to the plaintiffs’ patent by this court, it is not satisfactorily established that the defendants’ new stopper infringes that patent. For the purposes of this suit, three pivotal connections are necessary, and it is at least doubtful whether such new stopper has more than two. The case is one in which, on well-established principles, the questions involved must he tried on pleadings and proofs, in a new suit, and not in a summary manner in this suit.