Изображения страниц
[ocr errors]

If it be assumed that an applicant, by reason, adopted, and that the patent had long been ac-
of special circumstances, may have forfeited

his quiesced in by the trade. - National Co. v.
rights by failing to exercise the greatest possible Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.
diligence in moving the patent-office officials to
speedy action, the burden is yet upon the United

That three skillful mechanics, acting inde-
States to point out some method, not employed pendently of each other, suggested the same
by the patentee, of attaining that result.-Amer means of improving a machine, is persuasive
ican Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (O. C. A.) evidence that the improvement involved only

mechanical skill.-Haslem v. Pittsburg Plate-

Glass Co. (C. C.) 479; Same v. Standard Plate
Cancellation of patent.

Glass Co., Id.
Error of judgment by the commissioner in de- Where a machinist and model maker, from
laying action upon an application pending cer- the specifications and drawings of a prior patent
tain litigation, and the applicant's acquiescence alone, following a suggestion of the specifica-
therein, is no ground for canceling the patent. - tions, produced the device of the patent in suit,
American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. testifying that he had no difficulty, because
A.) 542.

such drawings and specifications made it plain,
A patent should not be canceled merely upon this was proof that the patent in suit involved

held, in the absence of contrary evidence, that
the ground of imputed fraud arising from delays only mechanical skill.–National Co. v. Belcher
of the patent office and the applicant's acqui- (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.
escence therein. — American Bell Tel. Co. v.
United States (C. C. A.) 542.

A method for overcoming disadvantages in
The issuance of a second patent to the same patentable invention, it appearing that the same

the use of celluloid for book covers held to show
person for the same invention, where the iden: was hit upon by the patentee only after contin-
tity of the inventions is not so clearly manifest ned experiment, and was not discovered by oth-
as to exclude reasonable difference of opinion, ers engaged in similar work, and that it pro-
such as will justify a court of equity in cancel- sults.-Horn v. Bergner (C. C.) 428.

duced artistic and commercially successful re-
ing the patent. - American Bell Tel. Co. v.
United States (C. C. A.) 542.

Where it is sought to cancel a patent for want The discovery that sheets of celluloid could
of diligence in pressing the application, it is not be adapted for use as card cases and book cov-
for the court

to say that the applicant was not ers, by sewing them between leather bindings so
entitled to use his own judgment in respect to as to be held by the stitches, is sufficiently nov-
what unofficial methods he might take, or the el to support a patent.-Collins v. Gleason (C.
persistency of his representations for the pur- C.) 915.
pose of moving the officials to action.-American
Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542.

An understanding between an applicant and devices found in coffee roasters, and applying

Transferring the hinging and journaling
the patent-office officials that further action shall them to waffle irons, does not involve invention.
the invention, which understanding consists only -Griswold v. Wagner (C. C. A.) 494.
in the interchange of the honest views of both There is no invention in forming a projecting
parties that this is the best course, is no ground socket to support the hinges of a waffle iron,
for cancellation of the patent subsequently is- and at the same time to give support to the
sued.-American Bell Tél. Co. v. United States raised half of the open pan.-Griswold v.
(C. C. A.) 542.

Wagner (C. C. A.) 494.
The statute defining the commissioner's au- The discovery of a method of preparing peas
thority to grant patents (Rev. St. $ 4893), and by cooking and flattening them while moist, so
that providing for relief against his decision by as to produce flat disks, without breaking the
appeal to the proper court of the District of Co- individual peas, held to show invention.-Everett
lumbia, and by a bill in equity (Rev. St. $$ v. Haulenbeek (C. C.) 911.
4911, 4915), operate to dehar a court of equity
from assuming jurisdiction to cancel a patent, same parties, for the use of "maltha," with

After the granting of several patents to the
in the absence of fraud or mistake or a clear

ex- different compounds as a coating, for. fabrics,
cess of authority by the commissioner: -Amer held, that there was no invention in dispensing

ican Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) with all solvents, and using pure maltha alone.

-Reynolds v. Standard Paint Co. (C. C. A.)

Prior conception and successful experiment Extent of claim.
do not constitute anticipation if abandoned
without going further.-Mast, Foos & Co. v.

Where the terms used in the specification and
Iowa Windmill & Pump Co. (C. C.) 213.

claims indicate so clearly a particular meaning

that no other can reasonably be attached to
A construction which had been very nearly ap- them, the patent must be construed in that
proached, but never reached, by prior inventors, sense, although this renders it impracticable and
helil to be patentable, in view of the facts that valueless.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond
it met a recognized want, and was extensively Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570.

[ocr errors]

Where the specifications of a patent for treat-In an action at law for infringement, where
ing rubber waste with sulphuric acid stated that the existence of invention is doubtful, it is prop-
“diluted" sulphuric acid was useless for the pur er to submit the same to the jury under proper
pose, and that the invention rested upon the instructions. - San Francisco Bridge Co. v.
discovery that the rubber in the waste would Keating (C. C. A.) 351.
resist the action of "strong" sulphuric acid, and
that the strength would depend upon the pro- Injunction.
portion of fiber in the waste, held, that the An injunction pendente lite will be granted
claims should be construed as covering the use where the patent has but three years to run,
of sulphuric acid of practically the full strength. and complainant has a large business, and the

- Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. patent has been sustained in a substantially
(C. C.) 570.

similar case, and defendants are but small man-
Claims for treating rubber waste with sul- ufacturers.--Carter-Crume Co. v. Ashley (C. C.)

phuric acid designated as "strong," "of suffi-
cient strength,” etc., held to be indefinite and Pleading.
insufficient in themselves, and requiring refer-
ence to the specifications to ascertain what de- does not show that the inventions covered by

A bill for infringement of five patents, which
gree of strength was required.-Chemical Rub- them are used by defendants conjointly, or up
ber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570.

on the same machine or apparatus, or are capa-

ble of such use, is bad for multifariousness.-
Assignment and license.

Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia &
A contract assigning all the assignor's discov- R. R. Co. (C. C.) 913.
eries, applications, and patents relating to "elec-
tric smelting processes and furnaces,” con-

A bill for infringement of five separate pat-

and held not to pass title to an applica- ents having been declared bad for multifarious-
tion for a process or reducing ores by "electrol- ness, held, that an amendment averring the con-
ysis." -Lowrey v. Cowles Electric Smelting & joint use by defendants of the subject matter

Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354.

paratus should be allowed.-Union Switch &
Where an invention was made by one em Signal Co. y. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (C. C.)
ployed by a manufacturer to devise an im- 914.
proved machine, to be made and sold by him,
and a patent was obtained by the employé after Damages for infringement.
leaving the employment, and no infringement There can be no recovery for damages and no
suit was brought for over 10 years, held, that accounting for profits where complainant has
there was an implied license to the employer, failed to allege either that the patented devices
which was not terminated by the accidental de were marked “Patented," or that actual notice
struction of the original patterns constructed of the patent was given to defendants, as re
under the supervision of the inventor. -With- quired by Rev. St. 4900. - National Co. v.
ington-Cooley Manuf'g Co. v. Kinney (C. C. A.) | Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.

A contract by which the parties convey a DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON-
certain class of discoveries, applications, and STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT
patents, describing the class in general terms,

will pass title to a pending application if it in
fact falls within the class, although neither Air chambers.
party at the time believed that it was in the
class.- Lowrey y. Cowles Electric Smelting & provement in air chambers for forcing water

The Hinkle patent, No. 183,055, for an im-
Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354.

for operating elevators, construed, and held void
Action for infringement.

by reason of anticipation. - National Co. v.

Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.
The defense of prior use cannot be sustained
upon vague and contradictory evidence of wit. Autographic stencil sheets.
nesses who attempted to describe the details of The Edison patent, No. 224,665, for an in-
a machine from memory after the lapse of near- vention relating to autographic stencil sheets
ly 30 years.-Singer Manuf'g Co. v. Schenck for multiplication of writings, sustained as a
(C. C.) 191.

meritorious and useful invention, and held in-
Affidavits made by witnesses over 10 years fringed.-Edison v. Hardie (C. C.) 487; Same v.
before his hearing in respect to a machine which Pomeroy Duplicator Co., Id.
they had not seen for 20 years prior to making Bar fixtures.
the affidavits are not admissible as evidence of
prior use, when, even after reading them, they

The Rothschild patent, No. 22,222, for a de-
disclaim any present recollection of the features sign for saloon bar fixtures, found not antici-
of such machine.--Singer
machine.-Singer Manuf'g Co. v.

pated, and held valid and infringed.-R. Roths-
Schenck (C. C.) 191.

child's Sons' Co. v. Mentel (C. C.) 716.
Fourteen years' delay by a patent owner in Cable railroads.
making any attempt to assert his rights against The Miller patent, No. 271,727, for an improve
an alleged infringer openly engaged in making ment in cable railways for raising the cable to
a rival machine held laches.-Woodmanse & the grip, held not anticipated.-American Cable
Hewitt Manuf'g Co. v. Williams (C. C. A.) 489. Ry. Co. v. City of New York (C. C.) 227.

Celluloid bindings and veneering. in pumps, held valid and infringed, the first as

The Collins patent, No. 405,874, for celluloid to claims 1 and 3, and the second as to claim
bindings of leather for
card cases and book cov: Pump Co. (C. C.)


1.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill &
ers, held valid and infringed.-Collins v. Gleason
(C. O.) 915.

Rocking chairs—Spring attachments.
The Hafely patent, No. 488,630, for a method

Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for
of applying celluloid veneering to the covers of spring attachments for rocking chairs, was not
books, albums, and other like articles, held valid anticipated by No. 185,501, issued December
and infringed.-Horn v. Bergner (C. C.) 428. 19, 1876.–Rocker Spring Co. v. Thomas (C. C.)

The Otis patent, No. 228,107, for regulating

Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for
the motion of elevators, and preventing acci- spring attachments for rocking chairs, is in-
dents, held valid and infringed as to claims 3, 4, fringed by a platform rocking chair with springs
6, and 7.-National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; anplied directly to the rocker and the base.
Same v. Morse, Id.

Rocker Spring Co. v. Thomas (C. C.) 196.
The Reynolds patents, Nos. 317,202, 456,122, Rubber-Recovery from waste.
and 458,917, for devices for controlling the op-
eration of elevators, held void, -the first as to 970, for a method of recovering rubber from

The Mitchell patents, Nos. 300,720 and 249,-
claim 1, the second as to claims 1 and 2, and waste by treating it with strong sulphuric acid
the third as to claims 2 and 3.-National Co. v. at boiling heat, construed and limited, and held
Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id.

not infringed.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Ray-

mond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570.
The Keating patent, No. 180,718, for an im. Sewing machine band-wheel bearings.
provement in excavators, held valid in respect
to the fourth claim (sustaining the verdict of

The Miller and Diehl patent, No. 224,710, for
the jury upon the question of invention). -San an improvement in band-wheel bearings' for
Francisco Bridge Co. v. Keating (C. C. A.) 351. sewing machines, held not invalid on the


of prior use, and held infringed.-Singer Manuf'g
Metal bloom rolls.

Co. v. Schenck (C. C.) 191.
The Moxham patent, No. 303,036, for an im- Sewing machine treadles.
provement in rolls for rolling metal blooms or
piles into girder shapes, construed as to claim 2,

The first claim of the Cramer patent for the
and held to be limited to rolls having a "pass” | improvement in sewing machine treadles is not
substantially of the contour shown in the draw infringed by treadles manufactured under the
ings, and therefore held not to have been in- patent granted to the Singer Machine Company,
fringed. - Johnson Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel as assignee of Phillip Diehl.-Cramer y. Fry
Co. (C. C.) 212.

(C. C.) 201.
Paper—Saturation with “maltha."

The Grout patent, No. 261,446, for an im-

provement in sewing machines treadles, con-
The Pearce and Beardsley patent, No. 378,520, strued narrowly, and held not infringed.-New
for a new article of manufacture, consisting of Home Sewing Mach, Co. v. Singer Manuf'g Co.
paper coated or saturated with “maltha,” held (C. C.) 224.
void for want of invention.-Reynolds v. Stand-
ard Paint Co. (C. C. A.) 483.

Stoves-Vapor-burning attachment.

The Klein and Woodard patent, No. 249,842,

for a vapor-burning stove attachment, held valid
The Beach patent, No. 215,313, for an im- and infringed, on motion for preliminary in-
provement in preparing peas, held valid and in- junction-Woodard V. Ellwood Gas Stove &
fringed.-Everett v. Haulenbeek (C. C.) 911. Stamping Co. (C. C.) 717.
Plate-glass polishers.

Telegraph and telephone.
The Haslem reissue, No. 10,872, for improve

The Berliner patent, No. 463,569, for a com-
ments in plate-glass polishers, held void for bined telegraph and telephone, held (in a suit
want of invention, and because, even if patenta- to cancel the same) not void on the ground of
ble. Haslem was not the first inventor:- Haslem fraud, mistake, or laches in pressing the appli-
v. Pittsburg Plate-Glass Co. (C. C.) 479; Same cation to final decision in the patent office. -
v. Standard Plate-Glass Co., td.

American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C.

A.) 542.
The Bean reissue, No. 8,631, for an improve- Waffle irons.
ment in pumps, is invalid as to its first four
claims.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill

The Griswold patent, No. 229,280, for im-
& Pump Co. (C. C.) 213.

provements in waffle irons, held void as to

claims 1 and 2 because of anticipation, and as
The Martin patent, No. 339,445, and the to claim 3 for want of invention.-Griswold v.
Hooker patent, No. 259,394, for improvements Wagner (C. C. A.) 494.

324,658. Electric smelting processes,

324,659. Process of obtaining aluminium, 362
335,058. Electric furnace,

277. Cable railways,

228 338,868. Paper coated with maltha, 484
339,445. Pumps,


348,993. Paper coated with maltha, 484, 487
91,665. Process of treating rubber waste, 573 348,994. Paper coated with maltha.

484, 485, 487

348,995. Paper coated with maltha,
18,400. Gearing for lifts,


484, 485, 487
348,996. Paper coated with maltha, 484, 485
349,430. Plate glass polishers,

354,043. Rocking chairs,

6,345. Coffee roaster,

496 378,520. Paper coated with maltha, 483, 484
21,387. Coffee roaster,
496 405,874. Celluloid bindings,

915, 916
21,858. Coffee roaster,

491 426,633. Waterproofing compositions for
22,222. Saloon bar fixtures,


24,024. Coffee roaster,
494, 496 456,122. Elevators,

665, 668, 669
27,176. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

458,917. Elevators,

665, 669
463,569. Telephones,


543-546, 565

461,933. Electric smelting processes,
63,753. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

363, 364, 378
67,178. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

468,148. Process of obtaining aluminium,

355, 362, 378

488,630. Book covers,
85,957. Process of obtaining aluminium,

357, 362, 366

96,930. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

8,631. Pumps,


126,585. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

10,359. Improvement in salesmen's check


10,872. Plate glass polishers,

131,910. Improvements in gridirons or boil-

151,014. Improvement in elevators,


158,805. Electric smelting processes,


174,465. Telephones,


Where a party, at the time of making a con-
175,588. Pumps,


180,189. Windmills,

tract for the use of a patented machine, tells
180,718. Excavators,


the lessor that he understands better terms as
183,055. Elevator pumps,

to royalty are given to others, but accepts the

185,423. Windmills,


machine on the terms offered him, and uses it,
185,501. Rocking chairs,

without making inquiry as to terms given oth-

215,313. Preparation of peas,

ers, or objecting on that ground, and afterwards

911, 912 solicits and receives modifications of the terms
220,514. Windmills,

224,665. Stencil sheets,

487, 488

in his own favor, he cannot afterwards recover
224, 710. Sewing machines,


back part of the royalties paid, on the ground
227,102. Rail connectors,


that he relied on false representations that the
228,107. Elevators,

665, 666

terms were uniform to all.–Bonsack Mach. Co.
229,280. Waffle irons,


v. S. F. Hess & Co. (C. C. A.) 119.
233,746. Improvements for electric rail-
way signals,


233,969. Telephones,

544, 565
239,260. Petroleum-asphaltum,

486 Rule against, see "Charities."
246,492. Improvements in electric railway

249,842. Vapor stoves,

Personal Injuries.

717, 718
249,970. Process of treating rubber waste,

See "Master and Servant”; “Negligence";

259,394. Pumps,

“Railroad Companies."

214, 222
261,446. Sewing-machine treadles,

264,837. Power presses,

500, 501

270,867. Improvements in electric railway

271,727. Cable railways,

The keel of a vessel towed through the middle

273,377. Improvements in electric railway

of a channel in Hell Gate struck some unknown

object; but subsequent examination showed no

914 obstruction where libelant's evidence placed the
300,720. Process of treating rubber waste,

571, 572

vessel's course. Held, that no negligence or
303,036. Rolling mills,

212, 213

lack of nautical skill in the pilot was shown.-
317,202. Elevators,

665. 662-669 Gypsum Packet Co. v. Horton (D. C.) 931.
317,795. Reduction of ores,


A display of the customary pilot signal on the
319,945. Process of obtaining aluminium, usual cruising ground of pilot boats, and the

360, 362, 316 visible approach of the boat towards an incom-
none of the lands are taxable.-Oakes v. Myers
Where a bond issued by a fidelity insurance (C. C.) 807.
company provides that the answers made by The grants of land by congress in 1822 and
the employer to questions asked in the applica- | 1827, in aid of the Illinois and Michigan canal,
tion shall be warranties, mere falsity of the an- vested the lands at once in the state, the condi-
swers is not sufficient to avoid the bond, but it tions as to filing maps and cummencement and
must be shown that the employer knew them to completion of the canal being conditions subse

[ocr errors]

ing vessel, are a sufficient tender of pilotage, ren- | be false.—Mechanics’ Savings Bank & Trust Co.
dering the vessel liable for the statutory fee if v. Guarantee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459.
she does not heed the tender.-Beebe v. The
Yumuri (D. C.) 930.

The executors of one D. filed a bill for an ac-

counting against C., alleging that he had obtain-
A vessel bound up the Delaware river to ed control of the affairs of D., an inexperienced
Philadelphia is bound to take the first available woman, and had misappropriated her property
pilot who offers his services; and if she refuses and failed to account. c. denied the charges,
him, and takes another, she is liable for his and on the hearing there was a failure to prove
fees.--Marshall v. The Earnwell (D. C.) 228. that D. was under C.'s control, and it appeared

that while she had had full opportunity for 10

years, while free from C.'s influence, to object

to his management, she had never done so, and

that C. held vouchers for his most important
In action for infringement of patent, see "Pat- transactions. Held, that the bill should be dis-
ents for Inventions."

missed.-Halsey v. Cheney (C. C. A.) 763.
In equity, see "Equity."

The rule that, on demurrer, facts well pleaded PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
are taken to be true, does not apply where, by
a public record of which the court takes judicial Evidence in an action against a fidelity insur-
notice, the facts are shown to be otherwise.—ance company on a bank teller's bond held to
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Groeck (C. C.) 609. justify a judgment against the sureties.--Me-

Where a demurrer to several separate de chanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guaran-
fenses has been sustained, a stipulation that tee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459.
some of them shall remain a part of the answer

A printed condition in a bank teller's bond is-
cures any error in sustaining the demurrer. - sued by a fidelity insurance company requiring
Board of Com’rs of Kearney County v. Mc- inspection of his accounts at least once a year
Master (C. C. A.) 177.

is satisfied by a quarterly examination required
by the contract executed at the time.-Mechan-

ics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee

Co. of North America (C. C.) 459.
Of corporate stock, see “Corporations."

One who stands in the position of surety to
another upon debts for which several distinct

pieces of property are primarily liable has a

right to object to the release of any part of such

property from any of such debts, and so to the
An indictment, under Rev. St. & 5480, for separate redemption of one part, by a lien cred-
using the mails as a means to defraud, must itor, from a prior mortgage.-Compton v. Jesup
directly allege that the scheme included the in- (C. C. A.) 263.
tended use of the mails in its execution.-United
States v. Harris (D. C.) 347.

An indictment for using the mails as a means See "Writs.”
to defraud must directly allege that defendant
designed to accomplish his fraudulent scheme

through the instrumentality of the post office.-
United States v. Long (D. C.) 348.

Against classification, see "Customs Duties."

Practice in Civil Cases.

See “Appeal”; “Costs”;, “Courts”; “Damages”; Congressional grants.

Equity.”; “Evidence"; "Judgment”; “Plead- When a designation of lands granted by con-
ing"; Removal of Causes"; "Trial.

gress has been made, under a mistake of fact

induced by a false survey, the secretary of the

interior has power, before the issue of a patent,
to recall and correct such designation.-Michi-

gan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust (C. C. A.) 155.
See, also, "Master and Servant."

Until the determination by the government as
Where an instrument is signed by an agent into what lands; within the limits of the grant to
his own name, with the addition of the title in the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, are
dicating his agency, evidence is admissible as mineral, in accordance with the exception in the
against the principal to show that the obligation grant and Act Cong. Feb. 26, 1895, no title
was intended to be his.-Society of Shakers v. to any of the lands passes to the company, and
Watson (C. C. A.) 730.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »