« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
attended with circumstances indicating that there would not have been this acquiescence if any fair doubt had existed as to the validity of the patent. A lack of public acquiescence, where the device is certainly new and useful, will not prevent the grant of a preliminary injunction.2
(11) Former Construction Followed.—The construction given in the prior adjudication of the patent will be followed in deciding upon a contest over a preliminary injunction.3
(12) Power of Court to Impose Conditions.—A preliminary injunction may be refused upon condition that the defendant give a bond with proper security,4 or will keep an account,5 or the injunction may be granted on condition that the complainant file a bond to indemnify the defendant for his losses, if he fail at final hearing, 6
tion prior to the application for a pat. mitted. Such submission is the most ent, if open and under a claim of right, persuasive kind of acquiescence. Sar. may raise a presumption in favor of the gent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553; patent. Tappan v. National Bank Cook v. Earnest, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 396; Note Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 195; s. C., 4 s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 89. Blatchf. (U. S.) 509; Sargent v. Sea A preliminary injunction will not be grave, 2 Curt. (U. S.) 553.
granted where the defendant has been The use of an invention for several in possession and use of the invention years along with other patented inven- for a long period adverse to the title of tions in a patented lamp, is not an ac- complainant under color of right. Hall quiescence of the public. Upton v. v. Spier, 6 Pittsb. L. J. 403; Isaac v. Wayland, 36 Fed. Rep. 691.
Cooper, 4 Wash. (U. Š.) 259; S. c., I 1. Guidet v. Palmer, 6 Fish. Pat. Robb Pat. Cas. 332. See infra this Cas. 82; s. C., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 217. title, Laches.
Estoppel.-An acquiescence in and Where the art is very complex, less assertion of the validity of the patent weight will be given to prior acquiesby officers of a company who were for- cence. Warner v. Bassett, 7 Fed. Rep. merly in the employ of the plaintiff, 468. will act as an inducement to a grant of a An acquiscence of less than a year is preliminary injunction against the com- insufficient where the patent is of doubtpany. Steam Gauge etc. Lantern Co. ful construction. Johnston Ruffler' v. Ham. Mfg. Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 618. Co. v. Avery Mach. Co., 28 Fed. Rep.
Where the bill does not aver that the 193. patentee has ever sold or used his im- 2. Hussey Mfg. Co. v. Deering, 20 provement, the preliminary injunction Fed. Rep. 795. will not be granted. Isaac v. Cooper, 3. Mallory Mfg. Co. v. Hicok, 20 4 Wash. (U. S.) 259; S. C., 1 Robb Fed. Rep. 116; Hammerschlag Mfg. Pat. Cas. 332.
Co. v. Judd, 28 Fed. Rep. 621. A large number of licenses had been A patent will be presumed to be taken, some voluntarily and some in valid only to the extent it has been adsettlement of litigation, and the inven- judicated so. Carey v. Miller, 34 Fed. tion had been thoroughly investigated Rep. 392. in the Patent Office, and there had been 4. Dorsey etc. Rake Co. v. Marsh, 6 a quasi adjudication. Held, sufficient Fish. Pat. Cas. 387; s. c., 9 Phila. (Pa.) public acquiescence to justify prelimi- 395; Morris v. Shelburne, 4 Fish. Pat. nary injunction in face of affidavits de Cas. 377; s. C., 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 266; nying novelty. Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. Steam Gauge etc. Co. v. St. Louis etc. v. Davis Mach. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 974. Supply Co., 25 Bed. Rep. 491.
An unsuccessful attempt to interrupt 6. Wilder v. Gaylor, i Blatchf. (U. a possession strengthens the presump. S.) 511. tion. It shows that persons who have 6. Brammer v. Jones, 2 Bond (U. S.) found it to their interest to question the 100; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 340; Shelly right have questioned it, but finally sub- v. Brannon, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; s. c.,
or other conditions. 1
PROVISION IN DECREE FOR DISSOLVING INJUNCTION.The decree for an injunction may provide for its dissolution on the defendant's giving bond and security for accounting.2
XII. DEFENSES TO ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.-1. Statutory.- (a) As To SPECIFICATION.—It is provided by statute that the defendant may defend by setting up that, for the purpose of deceiving the public, the description and specification filed by the patentee in the Patent Office was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his invention or discovery ; or more than was necessary to produce the desired effect.3
2 Biss. (U. S.) 315; Allis v. Stowell, Wise v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 33 Fed. 15 Fed. Rep. 242; Tobey Furniture Rep. 277. Co. v. Colby, 35 Fed. Rep. 592.
2. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean Especially where the injunction leads (U. S.) 250; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. to serious injury in suspending works. 118; Foster v. Moore, i Curt. (U. S.) Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. 279; Gilbert etc. Mfg. Co. v. Bussing S.) 13; s. C., 2 Robb. Pat. Cas. 332; 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 426; s. c., 8 Pat. Morse v. O'Reilly, 6 W. L. J. 102. Off. Gaz. 144; s. C., i Bann. & Ard.
The defendant, however, has no Pat. Cas. 621; Howe v. Morton, i Fish, right to demand that a bond shall be Pat. Cas. 586; Jones v. Merrell, 8 Pat. substituted for the injunction. Sickels Off. Gaz. 401; Annunciator Co. v. V. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 548; Hills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 134; American Tracy v. Torrey, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 275; etc. Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 4 Fish. Tilghman v. Mitchell, 4 Fish. Pat. Pat. Cas. 189; Goodyear v. Housinger, Cas. 615; s. C., 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 18; 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 147; S.C., 2 Biss. (U. S.) Gibson v. Van Dresar, 1 Blatchf. (U. 1; Sykes v. Manhattan Elevator etc. S.) 532; Conover v. Mers, 3 Fish. Pat. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 496; American Cas. 386; Ely v. Monson etc. Mfg. Co., etc. Purifier Co. v. Christian, 4 Dill. 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Consolidated (U. S.) 448; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney, 1 Bann. & Cas. 42;' Irwin v. McRobets, 4 Bann. Ard. Pat. Cas. 356; Hodge v. Hudson & Ard. Pat. Cas. 411; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. River R. Co., 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 165. Gaz. 853; Greenwood v. Bracher, 5
A bond can only be required in a Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 302; s. C., I case in which, if it is not given, the in. Fed. Rep. 856; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. junction must issue. American Co. v. 1151. Atlantic Co., 4 Dill: (U. S.) 100; s. c., 3. U. S. Rev. Stats. $ 4920. 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 168.
See supra Specification, supra However, it is for the court to say Clearness, supra Specification and whether the rights of the complainant Claim. are so clear that they ought to be pro- The fraudulent attempt is essential to tected by an injunction, or not so clear this defense. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Ma. so that they can be sufficiently pro- son (U. S.) 182; 8. C., I Robb Pat. tected by bond and security. Ely v. Cas. 131. Monson Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 64; Containing Too Much.-The fact that Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 Mc- the specification contains too much does Crary (U. S.) 155; s. C., i Fed. Rep. not make it prima facie fraudulent. 604; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. Hotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 Den. (U. S.) 263; s. C., 17 Pat. Off, Gaz. 974.
314. 1. Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. Matters Concealed.—The matters not & M. (U. S.) 135; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. disclosed must appear to have been Cas. 625; Orr v. Merrill, 1 Woodb. & concealed to deceive the public. Park M. (U. S.) 376; 8. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. v. Little, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 196; S. C., I 331; Serrell v. Collins, 4 Blatchf. (U. Robb Pat. Cas. 17; Gray v. James, I S.) 61; Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. & Pet. (C. C.) 394; 6. c., 1 Robb Pat. M. (U. S.) 13; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. Cas. 120; Durden v. Corning, 2 Fish. 331; Rogers v. Abbott, 4. Wash. (U. Pat. Cas. 477; Whittemore v. Cutter, I S.) 514; 8. C., i Robb Pat. Cas. 405; Gall. (U. S.) 429; s. C., i Robb Pat.
(6) PRIOR PATENT OR DESCRIPTION.—That the invention had been patented, or described in some printed publication? prior to his supposed invention or discovery thereof.3
(c) PUBLIC USE.—Public use or sale of the patented device two years prior to the date of the application for a patent.4
(d) SURREPTITIOUSLY OBTAINING A PATENT.—That he had surreptitiously or unjustly obtained the patent for what was, in fact, invented by another,“ who was using reasonable diligence in Cas. 28; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. Cas. 297; 8. c., i Deady (U. S.) 649; (U. S.) 218.
s. c., i Pat. Off. Gaz. 144; Kidd V. Tetley v. Easton, 1 Macrory (Eng.) Spence, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 37; Tillotson 48; Walton v. Bateman, 1 Web. Pat. v. Ramsay, 51 Vt. 309; Teese v. Phelps, Cas. (Eng.) 613; Neilson v. Harford, i 1 McAll. (U. S.) 17; Sickles v. Borden, Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 295; Lewis v. 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 535; Turrill v. Marling, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 493; Michigan etc. R. Co., I Wall. (U. S.) 8. c., I Abb. Pat. Cas. 421; Bovill v. 491; Serrell v. Collins, í Fish. Pat. Moore, i Davies Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 361; Cas. 289. S. C., I Abb. Pat. Cas. (Eng.) 231.
What is identity is a question of law, A fraudulent intention may be shown Latta v. Shawk, i Bond (U. S.) 259; by circumstantial evidence. Gray v. S. C., i Fish. Pat. Cas. 465. James, i Pet. (C. C.) 394; s. c., i Robb This is a different defense from prior Pat. Cas. 120; Dyson v. Danforth, 4 use. Meyers v. Bushby, 32 Fed. Rep. Fish. Pat. Cas. 133.
670. Material defects in the specification This defense cannot be made by etc., held may be such evidence. plea in equity. Walker on Patents, Whittemore v. Cutter, i Gall. (U. S.) (2nd ed.), $ 600. 429; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 28; Gray v. May be given under general issue with James, i Pet. (C. C.) 394; s.c., 1 Robb notice or special plea at law. Walker Pat. Cas. 120; Rentgen z'. Kanowrs, i on Patents (2nd ed.), 8 447. Wash. (U. S.) 168; s. C., 1 Robb Pat. It is a different defense from that of Cas. 1.
public use or sale within the United 1. See supra, Anticipation by Patent States for two years prior to the appliet seq.
2. See supra, Anticipation by Publi- by, 32 Fed. Rep. 670. cation,
A prior publication renders an Eng. The defenses in notes one and two lish patent void. Also Chemical Eleccannot be made in a suit in equity by tric etc. Light Co. v. Howard, 148 plea. Carnrick v. McKesson, 19 Mass. 352. Blatchf. (U. S.) 369; Zinn v. Weiss, 7 4. See supra this title, Public Use. Fed. Rep. 914.
This defense applies only to a use 3. U.S. Rev. Stats., 9 4920.
within the United States. Hurlburt v. This defense requires a description of Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456. the invention (as to what amounts to a For a clause held sufficient complidescription see Publication, supra) ance with the statute with reference to that it shall be contained in a work of this defense. See Anderson v. Miller, public character, and that the work be 129 U. S. 70. made accessible to the public before the With reference to this defense where discovery of the patentee. Reeves v. several divisional applications arise out Keystone Bridge Co., 5 Fish. Pat.Cas. of a single original, the date of the ap. 456; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 466.
plications is to be considered as the The construction of the description date of all the applications. Frankfort is a matter of law; the identity or di- Whiskey Process Co. v. Mill Creek versity of the thing described is a ques- Distilling Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 533. (U. S.) 327; Bischoff v. Wethered, 2 A foreign inventor cannot claim his Wall. (U. S.) 812; Stevens v. Pierpont, invention as of a date prior to his for. 42 Conn. 360; Waterbury Brass Co. v. eign patent or of a printed publication. New York etc. Brass Co., 6 Fish. Pat. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Cas. 43; Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. Electric Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 117. 64; Tucker v. Spaulding, 5 Fish. Pat. 6. See supra, Diligence.
adapting and perfecting the same.1
(e) ABANDONMENT.-That the invention has been abandoned.? (f) LACK OF UTILITY.—That the invention is not useful.3
2. Notice of Special Defenses.—Where the defendant intends to employ any of these defenses, he must give notice4 to the plaintiff' in writing thirty days before trial. At law this may be
1. U.S. Rev. Stats., $ 4920. This de- Walker on Patents (2nd ed.), 8 601; fense is distinct from prior public use, McKesson v. Carnrick, 19 Blatchf. (U. and a notice of a witness for this de- S.) 158. fense will not permit him to testify in 4. Most of these defenses could, withfor the other or vice versa. Meyers v. out the statute, be given in evidence Busby, 32 Fed. Rep. 670.
under the general issue. Wilder v. This defense is not complete unless Gaylor, 1 Blatchf. (U.S.) 599; Stephenall the above mentioned elements are son v. Magowan, 31 Fed. Rep. 824; s. C., present. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 42 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1063; Odiorne v. DenWall. (U. S.) 583; Reed v. Cutter ney, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 287; s. (U.S.) 590; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 81; c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 965; Roemer v. Singer v. Walmesley, 1 Fis. Pat. Cas. Simon, 95 U. S. 214; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. 558; Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. (U. S.) Gaz. 796; Pickering v. Phillips, 4 Cliff. 68; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 324.
(U. S.) 383; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. A case stated where the elements are 417; . c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 420; Bates present to make a good defense. Phelps v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. v. Brown, i Fish. Pat. Cas. 479; s. C., 4 Gaz. 337; Seymour v. Osborne, II Blatchf. (U. S.) 362.
Wall. (U.'S.) 516; Root v. Ball, 4 Mc2. See DEDICATION OR ABANDON- Lean (U. S.) 177. But the statute makes MENT OF AN INVENTION, vol. 5, p. 420. the notice obligatory. Kneass v.
This defense is distinct from that of Schuylkill Bank, 4. Wash. (U. S.) 9; s. "two years' public use prior to applica- c., i Robb Pat. Cas. 303; Kelleher v. tion for a patent.” Jones v. Sewall, 3 Darling, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 424; s. C., 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 563; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 328; s. c., 14 Cas. 343; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 630. Pat. Off. Gaz. 673; O'Reilly v. Morse,
Abandonment can be either actual or 15 How. (U.'S.) 62; Parker vi constructive, and may be interposed at Haworth, 4 McLean (U. S.) 370; Root law by general issue with or without v. Ball, 4 McLean (U. S.) 177: special notice. Walker on Patents, The object being that the plaintiff (2nd ed.), $ 449, in equity by answer. should not be surprised. Philadelphia Walker on Patents, (2nd. ed.), § 602; etc. R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U.S.) Root v. Ball, 4 McLean (U. S.) 177. 448; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 46; Silsby
Abandonment is a question of fact. v. Foote, 14 How. (U. S.) 218. Kendall v. Windsor, 2i How. (U. S.) Exception.—Where public use is the 322; American Hide etc. Co. v. Amer. only defense, and that public use is by ican Tool etc. Co.; i Holmes, (U. S.) plaintiff himself, notice need not be 503; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 284.
given. American Hide etc. Co. v. A plea of abandonment is not sus. American Tool etc. Co., i Holmes (U. tained by showing that the proceedings S.) 503. of the Patent Office were such as would . or his attorney. U. S. Rev. render void the claim said to be in- Stat., $ 4920; Teese v. Huntington, 23 fringed. Hutchinson v. Everett, 33 How: (U. S.) 2. Fed. Rep. 502.
6. U. $. Rev. Stat., § 4920; New 3. See UTILITY.
York Pharmical Co. v. Tilden, 21 Whether an invention is useful is a Blatchf. (U. S.) 191; s. C., 14 Fed. Rep. question of fact. Wintermute v. Red- 740; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 272; Teese ington, i Fish. Pat. Cas. 239; Langdon v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2; v. De Groot, i Paine (U. Š.) 203; s. c., Hudson v. Bradford, 1 Bann. & Ard. i Robb Pat. Cas. 433.
Pat. Cas. 539; s. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. Can be made at law under general 171. issue with notice or by special plea. 7. U. S. Rev. Stat., 8 4920; Teese v. Walker on Patents (2nd ed.), 8 448. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2; WestAnd must be set up in answer in equity. lake v. Cartter, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas.
done either by a special noticed under the general issue or, where permitted, by the practice by special pleading.2 In equity, notice must be given in the answer.3
(a) WHERE PRIOR INVENTION OR KNOWLEDGE OR PUBLIC USE IS ALLEGED.-In notices as to proof of prior invention, knowledge or use of the thing patented, the defendant shall state the names of the patentees, 4 the date of their patents and when
518; s. c., 4 Pat. Off. Gaz, 636. A Blatchf. (U. S.) 160; s. c., 3 Bann. & defective notice may be supplemented Ard. Pat. Cas. 403; s. C., 15 Pat. Off. by a second, if in time and form. Teese Gaz. 423; Kelleher v. Darling, 4 Cliff. v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. S.) 2. (U. S.) 424; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat.
1. Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. (U. Cas.438; s.c., 14 Pat. Off. Gaz.673; Bates S.) 2.
v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. 2. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) Gaz. 337; Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96; 454; s. C., i Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Grant v. S. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1089; Graham v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218; S. C., I Barber, 5 Pat. Off. Gaz, 149; Middleton Robb Pat. Cas. 604; Read v. Miller, 2 Tool Co. v. Judd, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Biss. (U. S.) 12; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. Wyeth v. Stone, i Story (U. S.) 273; 310; Phillips v. Comstock, 4 McLean S.C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23; Williams v. (U. S.) 525; . C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 724; Boston etc. R. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) Day v. New England Car Spring Co., 21; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 441; 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 179; Wilder v. Gay- S. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 906; Marks v. ler, i Blatchf. (U. S.) 597; Cottier v. Fox, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 502; s. c., 6 Stimson, 20 Fed. Rep. 906.
Fed. Rep. 727; Wonson v. Peterson, 13 It was held that the statutory notice Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 548; Odiorne v. could not be given in an answer under Denney, 3 Bann, & Ard. Pat. Cas. 287; the Oregon Code. Cottier v. Stimson, Earle ü. Dexter, i Holmes (U.S.) 412; 20 Fed. Rep. 906.!
Pitts v. Edmonds, i Biss. (U, S.) 16S. The plea must be filed thirty days be- The special defense must be set up fore trial. Phillips v. Comstock, 4 specifically and exactly. Agawam Co. McLean (U. S.) 528.
v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U, S.) 583; Bates v. And the plea and notice must not Coe, 98 U. S. 31; s. C., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz, raise same defense. Latta v. Shawk, I 337. Bond (U. S.) 259; s. c., i Fish. Pat. The answer must be amended to inCas. 465; Read V. Miller, 2 Biss. (U. clude the name, etc., of a witness intro. S.) 12.
duced to show prior use, if objection to A special plea and the general issue the introduction of the witness is made with notice may be joined. Cottier v. before the examiner. Kiesele v. Haas, Stimpson, 9 Sawy. (U. S.) 435.
32 Fed. Rep. 794. 3. Pickering v. Phillips, 2 Bann. & Evidence introduced collaterally to Ard. Pat. Cas. 417; s.c., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) establish facts relative to matters al383; Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. ready in evidence need not be set up in (U. S.) 583; Cook v. Howard, 4 Fish. the answer. Atlantic Works v. Brady, Pat. Cas. 269; Seymour v. Osborne, 3 107 U. S. 192; s. C., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Collender v. Grif- 1330. fith, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 212; Decker v. The answer must state the same Grote, ro Blatchf. (U. S.) 331; s. c., 6 things as are required to be set up by Fish. Pat. Cas. 143; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. the notice of special matter. Agawam Gaz. 65; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; (U. S.) 62; Geier v. Goetinger, 1 Bann. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 34; Woodbury & Ard. Pat. Cas. 553; s. C., 7 Pat. Off. etc. Planing Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. Gaz. 563; Pitts v. Edmonds, 2 Fish. S. 493 Pat. Cas. 52; s. c., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 168; 4. It is sufficient to specify the patJordan v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. ents and allege that the invention is 232; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 12 contained in them. Webster Loom Cliff, (U. S.) 379; Orr v. Merrill, 1 Co. v. Higgins, 103 U. S. 1580; s. c., 21 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 376; 8. c., 2 Robb Pat. Off. Gaz. 2031. Pat. Cas. 331; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Publication.-Ă publication pleaded Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488; Union Pa- as anticipation must have designated per Bag Co. v. Pueltz etc. Co., 15 the page or heading. Foote v. Silsby,