Henry

Henry v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
230 F. 457·1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 976
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 1916No. A-87California2,072 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Trippet, J.

This is a suit in which the complainant claims that the defendant is infringing a patent owned by the complainant and granted to one Lamar Lyndon. The patent was granted for an electro-mechanical water wheel governor. It will not be necessary for the court to describe fully this patent, or the rlaimg made in it. The purposes which were sought to be .accomplished by the invention are described in a general way in the first paragraph of the specification, as follows:

Complainant contends that the evidence shows that the defendant is infringing the complainant's patent, and that it is not necessary to resort to-the doctrine of equivalents in order to determine this infringement. The complainant contends that the Lyndon patent in controversy is a primary and pioneer patent; that it is so broad in scope and entitled to such broad interpretation that the claims therein may be read upon the structures of the defendant, so as to show infringement regardless of tire doctrine of equivalents. The broadest claim in the Lyndon patent is as follows:

•The complainant urges that this claim covers any mechanical means connected with the water gate operating means, and operating the by-pass valve…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.