Case Name: CASTER & CO., Limited, v. HOUGHTON et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1891-01-20
Citations: 53 F. 577
Docket Number: No. 2,762
Parties: CASTER & CO., Limited, v. HOUGHTON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 53
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
CASTER & CO., Limited, v. HOUGHTON et al.
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
January 20, 1891.)
No. 2,762.
Patents fob Inventions — Validity—Anticipation—Preliminary Injunction —Duplicate Memorandum Slips.
On motion for preliminary injunction, it is held that the first claim of letters patent No. 288,048, issued November G, 1883, to John II. Erink for an improvement in duplicate memorandum slips, is valid, and was not anticipated by devices made either under patent No. 266,189, issued October 17, 1882, to James L. O’Connor, or reissued patent No. 10,359, granted July 24, 1883, to John It. Carter.
In Equity. Bill by Garter & Go., Limited, against S. S. Houghton and others for infringement of letters pateiit Ho. 288,048, issued Hovember 6, 1883, to John H. Brink, for an improvement in duplicate memorandum slips. One of the defenses was that the patent was anticipated by devices made under letters patent Ho. 266,189, granted October 17, 1882, to James L. O’Connor, and reissued letters patent Ho. 10,359, dated July 24, 1883, to John R. Carter upon original patent Ho. 252,646, issued January 24,1882. On motion for preliminary injunction.
Granted.
Charles H. Dnell and H. Caryl Ely, for complainant.
Cowen, Dickerson, Nicoll & Brown, for defendants.

Opinion:
COLT, Circuit Judge.
In the above-entitled case the motion for a preliminary injuuction is granted. The court finds the first claim of the Brink patent valid, and that it was not anticipated by the O'Con-nor and Carter devices.