Case Name: NEW YORK AIR-BRAKE CO. et al. v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR-BRAKE CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-05-28
Citations: 69 F. 715
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK AIR-BRAKE CO. et al. v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR-BRAKE CO.
Judges: Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges, and TOWNSEND, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 69
Pages: 715–715

Head Matter:
NEW YORK AIR-BRAKE CO. et al. v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR-BRAKE CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 28, 1895.)
1. Patents—Infringement—Air Brakes.
The Westing,house air-brake patent, No. 300,070, held infringed, as to claims 1, 2, and 4; affirming decree for preliminary injunction. 05 Eed. 99.
2. Same.
A decree granting a preliminary injunction against infringement of claim 1 of the Westinghouse air-brake patent, No. 376,837, reversed, on the ground that the question of infringement was too doubtful to be_ resolved in favor of complainant on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a Mil by the Westinghouse Air-Brake Company against the New' York Air-Brake Company and others for infringement of letters patent Nos. 360,070 and 376,837, granted to George Westinghouse, Jr., March 29,1887, and January 24, 1888, respectively, for improvements in air-brake mechanism. The circuit court granted a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the former patent, and claim I of the latter. The opinion of Judge Lacombe in the court below is reported in 65 Fed. 99. Defendant appealed from the interlocutory order so granted.
J. E. Maynadier and F. P. Fish, for appellants.
Kerr & Curtis, J. Snowden Bell, George 11. Christy, and Frederic H. Betts, for appellee.
Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges, and TOWNSEND, District Judge.

Opinion:
PEE CURIAM.
We agree with the court below that the defendant's apparatus is an infringement of the first, second, and fourth claims of patent No. 360,070, and deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of Judge Lacombe. The question whether the apparatus is an infringement of the first claim of patent No. 37(5,-837 is too doubtful to be resolved in favor of trie complainant upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, and should be reserved for disposition upon the final hearing of the cause. So far as thé order appealed from allows an injunction for the infringement of this claim, it should be reversed; otherwise, it is affirmed. Ordered accordingly.