« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
2. Exceptions and Replications.—Where a defect in the answer is a proper subject for amendment, the objection should be taken by exception, and a replication filed where the matters pleaded in defendant's answer or plea are to be put in issue.2 .
3. Amendment of Answer.- Defects in answer must be cured by amendments ;3 and an amendment which presents a new defense or makes more than a formal alteration in the bill4 must show that the matter of the proposed amendment could not have been introduced into the answer sooner by using reasonable diligence.5
Bransford, 31 Fed. Rep. 458; Day v. regarded. Wren v. Spencer etc. Mfg. Combination Rubber Co., 2 Fed. Řep. Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 61; 570; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. S. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz, 857. But a re383; . C., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1347; Jordan plication may be special and in avoidv. Wallace, i Leg. Gaz. Rep. (Pa.) ance. Goodyear v. McBurney, 3 354; Fisher v. Hayes, 19 Blatchf. (U. .Blatchf. (U. Š.) 32. S.) 26; s. C., 6 Fed. Rep. 76; s. C., 20 The want of a replication cannot be Pat. Off. Gaz, 239.
objected to, after parties have proA matter which does not constitute ceeded to take testimony on the merits. a bar, but which will be considered in Fischer v. Wilson, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) determining the relief to be granted, is 220; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 228; proper to be set up in the answer. S. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 455. Sun Vapor Street Light Co. v. Cedar If a replication is sufficient other Rapid, 39 Fed. Rep. 698.
matter will be treated as surplusage Apparently where a sufficient de- merely. Wren v. Spencer etc. Mfg. fense has been set up once, a new de- Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 61; s. C., sense cannot be made. Consolidated 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 857. Electric Light Co. v. Brush etc. Elec- Form of Plea.-See Wheeler v. Mctric Light Co., 22 Blatchf. (U. S.) 206. Cormick, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 267.
1. Foster's Federal Practice, $ 153, Effect of Decree on Plea.-See Keller and cases there cited. Graham v. v. Stolsenbach, 20 Fed. Rep. 47; s. C., Mason, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 88; s. c., 5 Fish. 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 209. Pat. Cas. 1; Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. Replication to a Plea.-A replication McRoberts, 26 Fed. Rep. 765; Stirratt to a plea admits its sufficiency both in v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. form and substance. Bean v. Clark, 142.
40 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1454; Birdseye .v. A failure to except and to move to Heilner, 26 Fed. Rep. 147; 8. C., 34 Pat. take answer of files, or to have bill Off. Gaz. 139 2. taken pro confesso, admits the answer Replication to Answer.-A replicato be sufficient. Morris v. Kemphall tion to an answer is a waiver to deMfg. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 121.
fects therein or to its insufficiency. In certain cases, exceptions will not Wooster v. Muser, 20 Fed. Rep. 162. be permitted to be filed without leave. 3. Doughty v. West, 2 Fish. Pat. Allis v. Stowell, 10 Biss. (U. S.) 57. Cas. 553; Dental Vulcanite Co. v.
2. Foster's Fed. Practice, $ 156, 157, Wetherbee, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87; s. C., 2 158, 159.
Cliff. (U. S.) 555; Babcock etc. Co. v. Complainant cannot file a replication Pioneer Iron Works, 34 Fed. Rep. 338. after trying his case on bill and answer. Leave to amend in other than formal Bullinger v. Mackey, 14 Blatchf. (U. matters, is in the discretion of the court. S.) 355.
Pentlarge v. Beeston, 4 Bann. & Ard. Complainant may be allowed to file Pat. Cas. 23. And will sometimes a replication nunc pro tunc on sufficient only be granted on terms. Underwood excuse. Robinson v. Randolph, 4 v. Gerber, 37 Fed. Rep. 796. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 163.
4. Brown v. Hall, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.). A replication cannot make out a 401; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531; Roberts different case. Burdell v. Denig, 15 2. Ryer, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 293; S. C., II Fed. Rep. 397. But a replication con- Blatchf. (U. S.) 11; s. C., 3 Pat. Off. taining a general traverse and special Gaz. 550. matter may be good for the general 6. India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, traverse, and the special matter be dis- 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 85; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat.
Especially a fact admitted generally will not be allowed to be denied by an amendment,' nor a new defense dependent wholly on parol evidence be permitted to be set up.2
XVI. MOTIONS.—Where suits are brought which, in reality, all embrace the same cause of action, the court will, on motion, consolidate them :3 or where the pleadings contain scandal or imper. tinence, the court will, on motion or exception, cause the same to be stricken out.4
Cas. 315; Rumford Chemical Works 2. India Rubber Comb Co. v. v. Hecker, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. Phelps, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 85; 8. c., 4 351; Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 9 Blatchf. Fish. Pat. Cas. 315. Nor of any alle: (U. S.) 550; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 537; gation where there is doubt if evidence $. c., i Pat. Off. Gas. 633; Richardson can be procured to sustain it. Hicks v. Croft, ii Fed. Rep. Soo; s. C., 20 Pat. v. Otto, 17 Fed. Rep. 539. Off. Gaz. 372; Ruggles v. Eddy, II An assignee of a patent can amend Blatchf. (U. S.) 524; s. C., 5 Fish. Pat. his bill by introducing a claim for Cas. 583; Snow v. Tapley, 3 Bann. & damages by a prior infringement. New Ard. Pat. Cas. 228; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Gaz. 548; Roberts v. Ryer, 6 Fish. Pat. Grape Sugar Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 505. Cas. 293; s. C., 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 11; Nor can an amendment be made which S. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 550.
would virtually make a new suit. Instead of amending, defendant is Goodyear v. Bourn, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) sometimes permitted to file a supple-. 266. mental answer. Morehead v. Jones, 3 Time When Amendment Can Be Made. Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 306.
-There is no fixed time within which Costs on Amendment.-Upon an amendments must be made; they can amendment of the answer, a portion of be made even after final hearing. the costs may be placed on the defend- Brown v. Hall, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 401; ant. Morehead v. Jones, 3 Wall. Jr. S. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 531. (C. C.) 306; Roberts v. Buck, 1 Holmes Effect of Amendment.-An amend. (U. S.) 224; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 325; ment does not, of itself, permit the ad8. C., 3 Pat. Off, Gaz, 268.
mission of testimony which, though Effect of Amendment on Admissibility admissible under the amendment, of Testimony.-An amendment to an would not be admissible under the answer will not make testimony ad- original answer. Roberts v. Blake, 3 missible which was taken under ob- Pat. Off. Gaz. 268. But see Rob. jection before the answer was amended. erts v. Ryer, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 11; Roberts v. Buck, i Holmes (U. S.) Roberts ü. Buck, i Holmes (U. S.) 224; s. C., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 325; s. C., 3 224. Pat. Off. Gaz. 268.
3. Different suits brought for in. Element of Surprise to Plaintiff.-If fringement of different patents which the answer contains a general aver- are all embraced in a single structure ment, and the amendment is to partic- made by defendant. Deering v. Wi. ularize this averment, and the plaintiff nona Harvester Works, 24 Fed. Rep. will not be taken by surprise, the de- 90.fendant may be allowed to amend even 4. Miller v. Buchanan, 5 Fed. Rep. at final hearing. Brown v. Hall, 6 366. Blatchf. (U. S.) 401; . C., 3 Fish. Pat. Admission of Manufacturer to Defend Cas. 531; Roberts v. Ryer, 11 Blatchf. Suit.-A manufacturer will be admitted 11; 8. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 55; s. C., 6 to defend in a suit brought against a Fish. Pat. Cas. 293.
purchaser of his manufactured device 1. Pentlarge v. Beeston, 15 Blatchf. on petition. Curran v. St. Charles (U. S.) 347; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Car Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 835. Cas. 23; Morehead v. Jones, 3 Wall. A motion to extend time of taking Jr. (C. C.) 306; Ruggles v. Eddy, il testimony, will not be granted where Blatchf. (U. S.) 524; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat there has been great lacles on part of Cas. 581; Webster Loom Co. v. Hig- party applying. Dederick v. Farquegins, 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) 349; 6, c., 16 har, 39 Fed. Rep. 346; Streat v, Pat. O8. Gaz. 665.
Steinam, 38 Fed. Rep. 548.
XVII. EVIDENCEM-1. Answer as Evidence.—The sworn answer, responsive to the bill, is evidence as in other equity cases, and an answer not under oath is evidence2 against the defendant as an admission, and the averments in avoidance must be proved. 3
2. Presumption--(a) RELATING TO PATENTS.—The patent is prima facie evidence that it is valid, as it is presumed that the Commissioner has performed his duty,4 and that the patentee is the inventor. A patent to two or more as joint inventors involves a
1. Woodworth v. Hall, i Woodb. & York etc. Brass Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 43; M. (U. S.) 248; s. C., 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. Sands v. Wardwell, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 277; 495; Hovey v. Stevens, 1 Woodb. & Heating Co. v. Drummond, 3 Bann. & M. (U. S.) 290; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. Ard. Pat. Cas. 138; Union Stone Co. 479.
v. Allen, 14 Fed. Rep. 353; Tilghman But the denial of infringement must v. Werk, i Bond. (U. S.) 511; s. c., 2 be positive. Goodyear v. Berry, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 229; American Bell Bond (U. S.) 189; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Teleph. Co. v. Globe Teleph. Co., 31 Cas. 439; Poppenhusen v. New York Fed. Rep. 729; Byerly v. Cleveland etc. Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 185; Linseed Oil Works, 3i Fed. Rep. 73; . C., 2 Fisher Pat. Cas. 74.
Good v. Baily, 33 Fed. Rep. 42; s. C., If the denial of novelty in the ans- 41 Pat. Off. Gaz. 935; Osborne vi wer is positive and under oath it requires Glazier, 31 Fed. Rep. 402; American more than the testimony of one witness Box Mach. Co. v. Day, 32 Fed. Rep. to establish infringement. Hovey v. 585; Bostock v. Goodrich, 21 Fed. Rep. Stevens, I Woodb. (U. S.) 290.
316; McMillin v. Vicksburg Anchor 2. Smith v. Potter, 3 Wis. 432. Line, 22 Fed. Rep. 169; Celluloid Mfg.
3. Hoffheins v. Brandt, 3 Fisher. Pat. Co. i'. Chrolithion Collar etc. Co., 23 Cas. 218.
Fed. Rep. 397; Adams etc. Mfg. Co. v. Admissions in Answer.-An admission Rathbone, 26 Fed. Rep. 262; American in the answer is not waived by taking Box Mach. Co. v. Day, 32 Fed. Rep. testimony on the subject. Jones v. 585; Konold v. Klein, 3 Bann. & Ard. Morehead, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 155.
Pat. Cas. 226; Wayne v. Holmes, I And a disclaimer of desire to con- Bond (U. S.) 27; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. test the patent, is an admission warrant. 20; McClure v. Jeffrey, 8 Ind. 74; Mcing a decree in sustaining the validity. Bride v. Grand De Tour Plow Co., 40 of the patent and finding infringement. Fed. Rep. 162; Mesker v. Thaener, 42 Globe Nail Co. v. Superior Nail Co, 27 Fed. Rep. 329. Fed. Rep. 454.
The presumption of validity has been 4. Potter v. Holland, I Fish. Pat. held to arise also from the oath of the Cas. 382; s. C., 4 Blatchf. (U S.) 238; inventor filed with the application. In Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglass, 2 Fish. re Wagner, 1 MacArthur Pat. Cas. Pat. Cas. 330; s. c., 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 510. 134; Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason (U. S.) 6. Serrell v. Collins, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 182; s. c., i Robb Pat. Cas. 121; Cox 289; Conover v. Rapp, 4 Fish. Pat. v. Griggs, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; s. c., I Cas. 57; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., Biss. (U. S.) 362; Clark Patent etc. Co. 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 379; Roberts v. HarnV. Copeland, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221; den, 2 Cliff. (Ú. S.) 500; Goodyear Poppenhusen v. New York etc. Comb Dental etc. Co. v. Gardner, 4 Fish. Pat. Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62; Waterman v. Cas. 224; s. C., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 408; Thompson, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; Allen Knight v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 1 Taney v. Hunter, 6 McLean (U. s.) 303; (U. S.) 106; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Alden v. Dewy, i Story (U. S.) 336; Sherman v.Champlain Transp. Co., 31 8. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 17; Brooks v. Vt. 162; Ayling v. Hull, 2 Cliff. (U. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. S.) 432; Hein- S.) 494; Whipple v, Baldwin etc. Mfg. rich v. Luther, 6 McLean (U. S.) 345; Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29; Bierce v. Wayne v. Holmes, i Bond (U. S.) 27; Stocking, 77 Mass. 174; Brooks v. JenWoodworth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M. kins, 4 McLean (U. S.) 432; Ashcroft (U. S.) 135; Hudson v. Draper, 4 Cliff. v. Cutter, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 511; Par(U. S.) 178; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 253; ham v. American Button etc. Mach, Waterbury etc. Brass. Co. v. New Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Earle v.
presumption that they were such. A patent is presumed to correspond with the application,and there is a slight presumption that a person having a subsequent patent is not an infringer.3
(6) PRESUMPTION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT.—The, presumption of innocence raises the presumption of non-infringement by the defendant.4
Sawyer, 4 Mason (U. S.) 1; s. C., 1 Rep. 458; s. C., 39 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1083. Robb Pat. Cas. 491; Whitney v. Em- A foreign patent to the American mett, 1 Baldw. (U. S.) 303 ; s. C., I patentee jointly with another, does not Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Brodie v. Ophir shift the burden of proof. Hoe v. Cotetc. Min. Co., 5 Taney (U. S.) 608; trell, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 546; s. C., I Masury v. Tiemann, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) Fed. Rep. 597; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. 426; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 524; Tomp- Pat. Cas. 256; s. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. kins v. Gage, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 577; 59. Konold v Klein, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. 2. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, Cas. 26; Sands v. Wardwell, 3 Cliff. 105 U. S. 580 ; s. C., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. (U. S.) 277; Green v. French, 11 Fed. 2031. Rep. 591; s. C., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1351; Presumption of Title.—There is a Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglas, 2 Fish. presumption that the owner of the Pat. Cas. 330; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. patent has not parted with any of his 171 ; s. C., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 47; Crouch rights. Watson v. Smith, 7 Fed. Rep. v. Spear, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 350; s. C., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 300. 145; S. C., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 187; Hawes 3. Coming v. Burden, 15 How. (U. v. Antisdel, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. S.) 252; American Pin Co. v. Oakville 10; S. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 685; Taylor Co., 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 190; Stearns v. v. Wood, 12 Blatchf. (U, S.) 110; S. c., Barrett, 1 Mason (U. S.) 153; s. C., I i Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 270; s. c., 8 Robb Pat. Cas. 97 ; Smith v. Woodruff, Pat. Off. Gaz. 90; Patterson v. Duff, 1 McArthur (U. S.) 459; s. c., 6 Fish. 20 Fed. Rep. 641; Rogers v. Beecher, Pat. Cas. 476; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz. 3 Fed. Rep. 639; Eclypse Mfg. Co. v. 635; Westlake v. Carter, 6 Fish. Pat. Adkins, 44 Fed. Rep. 280.
Cas. 519; s. C., 4. Pat. Off. Gaz. 636; This Presumption Strengthened by Trader v. Missmore, i Bann. & Ard. Extension.—Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fish.. Pat. Cas. 639; s. C., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 385; Pat. Cas. 396; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Ğaz. 89. New York Rubber Co. v. Chaskel, 9
Date of Presumption of Novelty.–Pre-. Pat. Off. Gaz. 923. sumption of novelty relates back to Other Presumptions Arising Out of time of invention. Klein v. Russell, Patent.-That the date of application 19 Wall. (U. S.) 433.
was the date of grant. Worley v. LokRebuttal of Presumption.—To over- er Tobacco Co., 104 U. S. 340 ; S. C., 21 throw the presumption arising from Pat. Off. Gaz. 559. the patent, the proof must be clear. That the patent unlimited on its face Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglas, 2 Fish. is not to be limited by a prior foreign Pat. Cas. 330; Crouch v.Spear, 1 Bann. patent to same inventor. American & Ard. Pat. Cas. 145; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. etc. Boring Co.v. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. Gaz, 187; Rogers v. Beeche, 3 Fed. (U. S.) 303 ; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Rep. 639; Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed. Rep. Cas. 603. 359; s. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1047 ; Stil 4. Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathie. well etc. Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Gas son, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 639; 8. c., 2 Fish. Light etc. Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Pat. Cas. 600; Bell v. Daniels, i Bond Cas. 610; s. C., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 829. (U. S.) 212 ; s. c., i Fish. Pat.Cas. 372;
1. Worden v. Fisher, ii Fed. Rep. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 505; 8. C., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1957; God- (U. S.) 379; Hudson v. Draper, 4 Fish. fried v. Brewing Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 256; s. C., 4 Cliff. (U.S.) 178; Pat. Cas. 4; s.c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 675; Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 153; Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 4 McLean S. c., i Pat. Off. Gaz. 48; Price v. Kel. (U. S.) 456; Consolidated Bunging ley, 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1452; Lehigh Apparatus v. Woerle, 29 Fed. Řep. Valley R. Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S. 449; s. C., 38 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1015. 112; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1891; Dixon
Similarly of a patent to a sole in- v. Moyer, i Robb Pat. Cas. 324; s. c., ventor. Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. 4 Wash. (U. S.) 68; Roger v. Chicago
3. Judicial Notice. — The court will take notice of scientific matters of common knowledge.
Mfg. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 853; Mallory Pat. Cas. 128. The use of water to reMfg. Co. v. Hickok, 25 Fed. Rep. 827; move obstructions in sinking piles. American etc. Purifier Co. v. Atlantic Knapp v. Benedict, 26 Fed. Rep. 627. Milling Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 100; s. c., See also Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 4. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 148; 8. C., 15 592; Quirolo v. Ardito, 17 Blatchf. (U. Pat. Off. Gaz, 467; Hayden v. Suffolk S.) 400; Snow v. Taylor, 14 Pat. Off. Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Čas. 86.
Gaz. 861; Anson v. Woodbury, 12 Pat. Where the evidence of infringement Off. Gaz, 1; King v. Gallun, jog U. S. is not clear it is insufficient. Hill v. 99; 6. C., 25 Pat. Off. Gaz. 980; Slawson Holyoke Envelope Co., 30 Fed. Rep. v. Grand St. etc. R. Co., 107 U. S. 649; 623; Reay v. Rau, 15 Fed. Rep. 749. 8. C., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 99; Torrent etc.
What is held sufficient evidence of Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 112 U. S. 659; infringement. Kiesele v. Haas, 32 Fed. S. c., 30 Pat, Off. Gaz. 449; Phillips v. Rep. 794; Dryfoos v. Friedman, 21 Detroit, ul. U. S. 604; Reed v. LawBlatchf. 563; s. c., 18 Fed. Rep. 824; rence, 29 Fed. Rep. 915. Peterson v. Simpkins, 25 Fed. Rep. 486; The court will consider scientific facts Spring v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., of general knowledge when the bill is 9 Fed. Rep. 505; Woven Wire Mattress demurred to for want of novelty in the Co. v. Wire Bed Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 87; patent. New York Belting Co. v. New Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. Rep. 86; Jersey Car Spring etc. Co., 30 Fed. Rep. Fischer v. O'Shaughnessey, 6 Fed. Rep. 785. 92; Gear v. Fitch, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. It will take judicial notice of things Cas. 573; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1231; in common use in such case. West v. Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Binney, Rae, 38 Fed. Rep. 45. 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 166; Eastman v. Bod - And may declare the patent invalid. fish, i Story (U. S.) 528; Colleng v. Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. Rep. Jackson, 45 Fed. Rep. 639; Schneider 292; Nicodemus v. Frazier, 19 Fed. 0. Missouri Glass Co., 36 Fed. Rep. Rep. 260. 582.
But will not do so in a doubtful case.'
burden of proof is shifted to the com- Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 295. plainant to establish a prior invention, Where an article required some time when an invention prior to the date of to get on the market, the court will preapplication. Thayer v. Hart, 22 Blatchf. sume that in due course of business it (U. S.) 229.
took some time to produce the articles Burden of proof is on defendant to before they were found on the market. show non-infringement when the court Wen v. Morden, 21 Fed. Rep. 243. was satisfied that the devices were the That the file wrapper is frequently same. National Hat Pouncing Mach. altered in the Patent Office. Hoe v. Co. v. Thom, 25 Fed. Rep. 496.
Kahlter, 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 354. Other Miscellaneous Presumptions. Of What the Court Will Not Take That mechanics who take out a patent Judicial Notice.--The Model of an inor build a machine are conversant with vention. Everett v. Thatcher, 3 Bann. the state of the art. · Crompton . & Ard. Pat. Cas. 435. Knowles, 7 Fed. Rep. 204; James v. Of matters of science, not strictly of Campbell, 104 U. S. 356.
common knowledge. Kaolatype En1. That iron and steel may be suc- graviny Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. Rep. 444. cessfully welded without a flux. Need Of Facts of which experts differ. St. ham v. Washburn, 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 749. Louis Gas Light etc. Co. v. American The existence of the common forms of F. Ins. Co., 33 Mo. App. 348. See also ice cream freezers. Brown v. Piper, 91 Finger v. Kingston (Supreme Ct.), 9 N. U. S. 37; s. C., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 417. Y. Supp. 175. The ordinary construction of sewer of what It Will Take Judicial Notice. traps. McKioskey v. Dubois, 8 Fed. Of the meaning of the word “whisky." Rep. 710; s. C., 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 205; Frese v. State, 23 Fla. 267. s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1286. Marking Of the existence and construction of out soles on leather so that they would grain elevators at a certain date. Richfit with each other and save material. ards v. Michigan etc. R. Co., 40 Fed. Walker v. Rawson, 4 Bann. & Ard. Rep. 165.