Case Name: National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-01-15
Citations: 48 F. 913
Docket Number: 
Parties: National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 48
Pages: 913–914

Head Matter:
National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 15, 1892.)
Patents ttor Inventions — Constbuction—Res Judicata.
The construction oí a patent in an action is conclusive in another action hy the patentee against a third person, where no new defenses are interposed.
In Equity. Suit by the National Folding Box & Paper Company against the American Paper Pail & Box Company for infringement of letters patent No. 171,866, granted January 4, 1876, to Reuben Ritter, for an improvement in paper boxes. Heard on motion for a preliminary injunction.
Granted.
Waller D. Edmunds, for complainant.
Billings & Cardozo, (R. Bach McMaster, of counsel,) for defendant.

Opinion:
Lacombe, Circuit J udge.
The patent sued upon was construed by this court in Box Co. v. Nugent, 41 Fed. Rep. 140. For the purposes of this motion, that construction is to be accepted; especially in view of the fact that no new defenses are interposed. The patent- was limited to a locking device, which operated by the engagement of a hooking device with a slot, not at a single point of contact, but where the hook and slot were so arranged as to be brought in contact, .straight edge to straight edge. The defendant's box, shown in Exhibit A, operates, and seems devised to operate, in that way, as much as did the one made by Nu-gent, and before the court in the former suit. The projection does not sink down to the end of the slot, and. there hook over the material in which the slot is cut, as in so many other devices, but-engages with the edge of the slot itself at several points, successively or continuously, as the pressure upon the parts varies. Complainant may take a preliminary injunction.