« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC
DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. See Army and Navy.
(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Ap
plication Thereof. MINES AND MINERALS.
ww976 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Tax collector's ac. III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUARRIES. ceptance of bank's check for taxes held not payAND WELLS.
ment of taxes.-City Nat. Bank of El Paso v. (B) Mining Partnerships and Companies. City of El Paso, Tex., 10 F.(20) 308.
97 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Nature of relationship between common owners and operators of min
NATIONAL BANKS. ing property stated.–Sturm v. Ulrich, 10 F. See Banks and Banking, aw 270–287. (20) 9.
"Mining partnership" distinguished from ordinary partnership.-Id.
NAVIGABLE WATERS. contract or be implied from conduct.-Id.
Evidence held to show existence of mining See Wharves. partnership in oil and gas lease.-Id. Om 99(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Each partner in
II. LANDS UNDER WATER. mining partnership or creditor has lien on part- 36(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Lands bordering ner's interest for advances.-Sturm v. Ulrich, on tidewater and below high-water mark sub10 F.(20) 9.
ject to state regulation.-The M. L. C. No. 10, Lien for advance attaches to partner's inter- 10 F.(20) 699. est in entire partnership property.-Id. That partner in mining partnership incum
NEGLIGENCE. bered his interest by mortgage held not to affect rights of other partners, nor of mortgagee. See Master and Servant, 88–289; Railroads, -Id.
266-400. Qm99 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Power of one min.
I. ACTS OR ing partner to bind others limited to acts hav
NEGLIGENCE. ing direct connection with development of venture.--Sturm v. Ulrich, 10 F.(20) 9.
(B) Dangerous Substances, Machinery,
and Other Instrumentalities. MONOPOLIES.
Em 18 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Oregon Employers'
Liability Law requires employers to take preII. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINATIONS
cautions for protection of employés of others. IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. Omw 12(1) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Purpose of prevent- (20) 335. ing undue restraint in trade stated.-U. S. v. In- Lumber company held required to exercise ternational Ilarvester Co., 10 F.(20) 827. care required by Oregon Employers' Liability Omn 21 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Violation of Anti- Law toward stevedoring company's employé. Trust Laws will not deprive right to maintain -Id. suit for infringement of patent.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Électric Lamp Co., 10 III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. F.(20) 851.
(D) Comparative Negligence. 31 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Plan of trade association to exchange information held competent to
101 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Employee's contribuprove intent, in removal proceedings for violat- tory negligence no bar under Arizona Employ. ing Sherman Act.-Steeves v. Rodman, 10 F. of injury.-Niles v. Lavender, 10 F.(20) 450.
ers' Liability Act, unless sole proximate cause (20) 212. MORTGAGES.
IV. ACTIONS, See Chattel Mortgages.
w 134(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence held not MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
to show injured stevedore's work was wholly See Street Railroads.
for stevedoring company loading lumber_sup
plied by lumber company.-Pacific States LumII. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNC- ber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F.(20) 335.
TIONS IN GENERAL. 62 (App.D.C.) Exercise of discretion can
(C) Trial, Judgment, and Review. not be delegated, though exercise of ministerial 136(31) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Whether neglifunctions may be.-Larrabee v. Bell, 10 F.(20) gence of drag line machine operator was sole 986; Varela v. Bell, 10 F.(20) 989.
cause of injury, so as to bar recovery under
Arizona Employers' Liability Act, held for jury. IX. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
- Miles v. Lavender, 10 F.(20) 450. (A) Power
NEW TRIAL. Reinecke, 10 F.(20) 3.
I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF REMEDY. (C) Contracts.
Cum 6 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Refusal of new trial is 348 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Under Ohio statute,
within discretion of trial judge.-Adkins-Polk materialman may bring action against default- & Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 10 F.(20) 361. ing contractor's surety alone, though principal and surety were jointly and severally bound.
See Bills and Notes,
For cases in Dec.Dig, & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
not support patent.-Hitchcock v. Valley Camp
Coal Co.. 10 F.(20) 381. ! (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.). One may "obstruct justice” by merely failing to aid, but to "ob
Em 17 (App.D.C.) Elevating mechanism, having struct administration of justice' requires some
nut formed to present a transverse section of thing more than nonaction.-Rosner v. U. S., termine wear, held to involve invention.-In re
its threaded bore to permit examination to de10 F.(20) 675.
Klausmeyer, 10 F.(20) 654. “Administration of justice" means perform
Om 17 (App.D.C.) Making white the identifying ance of acts or duties required by law in 'discharge of duty.-Id.
letters on matrices of linotype machines, to em 6 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Advising another
facilitate reading, held not patentable invento
tion.-In re Anderson, 10 F.(20) 1004. disregard letter of district attorney requesting him to plead to information is not obstructing having washer locked both to threaded stem and
Om 17 (App.D.C.) Device consisting of lock nut due administration of justice (Penal Code, Š 135 (Comp. St. § 10305]).-Rosner v. U. S.,
to nut held to involve patentable invention.-In
re Stevenson, 10 F.(20) 1008. 10 F.(2d) 675.
em 19 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Mere increase in size of OFFICERS.
parts of device of well-known functions is not See Attorney General; Clerks of Courts; Pub. patentable.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. lic Service Commissions; Receivers.
v. Pittsburgh Transformer Co., 10 F.(22) 593.
ability to change of form covers alloys, though
alloy accomplishing new result may attain inal (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Order of President held vention.-David Belais, Inc., v. Goldsmith Bros. commutation,” and not "pardon."-Chapman v.
Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F.(20) 673. Scott, 10 F.(20) 156.
C 20 (U.S.D.C.III.) Mere change in size or Em (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Probation law held not in proportions of device is not patentable.-Kilconflict with pardoning power.-Archer V.
Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co., 10 F.(20) Snook, 10 F.(20) 567.
536. -8 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) “Commutation” is oper. On 20 (App.D.C.). Increasing number of sides ative without acceptance by convict; "pardon.”
on cap for tire valve does not constitute inven-Chapman v. Scott, 10 F.(20) 156.
tion.-In re Bronson, 10 F.(20) 1015.
On 21 (App.D.C.). Substitution of wooden
spokes for those of other material in steering
wheel not patentable invention.-In re Lobdell, For parties on appeal and review of rulings as 10 F.(20) 656. to parties, see Appeal and Error.
On 23 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Omission of element of For parties to particular proceedings or instru- device may constitute invention where same ments, see also the various specific topics. functions performed.-Hitchcock Valley
Camp Coal Co., 10 F.(20) 381.
m25 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Mere aggregation of old
elements, performing no new function, is not
invention. - Benzer Corporation v. Dresner, 10 On 26 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Action may be main- F.(20) 620. tained against either or both of two persons Cm 25 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Improving machine in who are jointly and severally bound on a single production of well-known results is not suffiobligation.-Royal Indemnity Co. y. Cliff Wood, cient to make patentable rearrangement or agCoal & Supply Co., 10 F.(20) 501.
gregation of old elements.-Westinghouse Elec
tric & Mfg. Co. v. Pittsburgh Transformer Co., PARTITION.
10 F.(20) 593. II. ACTIONS FOR PARTITION.
em 26(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) New result may
disclose invention, though it existed in pone (A) Right of Action and Defenses.
of successive steps by which it was obtained. ww12(1) (App.D.C.) Neither husband
-David Belais, Inc., v. Goldsmith Bros. Smeltwife can convey interest in estate by the en- ing & Refining Co., 10 F.(20) 673, tireties without the other's consent, nor en- 26 (2) (U.S.D.C.III.) Combination of old eleforce partition thereof.-American Wholesale ments, not producing new result, is not patentCorporation v. Aronstein, 10 F.(20) 991.
able.-Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co.,
10 F.(2d) 536. PATENTS.
Om 26(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) New combination of
old elements producing new and useful results I. SUBJECTS OF PATENTS.
is indicative of invention.-Abrahams v. UniOm 12 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Normal development
versal Wire Co., 10 F.(2d) 838. of machinery should not be restricted by pat
On 26 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Process consisting ents which do not involve real invention.--John
of old steps may be patentable, if it produces son Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F.(20)
new and useful results.--Alfred Hale Rubber 793.
Co. v. Morse & Burt Co., 10 F.(20) 843.
en 27(1) (U.S.D.C.Ill.) Application to
use of device without substantial modification, (A) Invention.
is not patentable.-Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago 16 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patentee, to merit Plating Co., 10 F.(20) 536. patent, must disclose new and useful art, ma- ww32 (App.D.C.) Doubt, if any, should be rechine, manufacture, or composition of matter. - solved in favor of patentability.-In re StevenGuthrie v. Curlett, 10 F.(20) 725.
son, 10 F.(20) 1008. Col7 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Ordinarily, attain- 36 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patent held entitled to ment of comparative superiority or greater ex
whatever favorable treatment arises from comcellence is not patentable invention.-David mercial success.-Lyon v. Boh, 10 F.(2d) 30. Belais, Inc., v. Goldsmith Bros. Smelting & Re- Om36 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Commercial success fining Co., 10 F.(20) 673.
is unsafe guide to invention, particularly un17 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That device merely less prior efforts have been made to fill the does automatically what formerly has been space.-David Belais, Inc., v. Goldsmith Bros. done manually held not to invalidate patent.- Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F.(20) 673. French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 Com 36 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence of commercial F.(20) 257.
success held insufficient to sustain validity of Om 17 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Ingenuity and mechani- doubtful patent.-Alfred Hale Rubber Co. v. cal ability not accomplishing something new will Morse & Burt Co., 10 F.(20) 843.
Om 36 (App.D.C.) Application for patented rights of another.-Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 valve device for heavy steam and water pres- F.(20) 1006. sures rejected.-In re Vissering, 10 F.(20) 1010. cm. 90 (3) (App.D.C.) Efforts toward commer
cial exploitation of invention not reduced to (B) Novelty.
practice do not constitute diligence.-Petersen 39 (U.S.D.C.Cal.).“Pioneer patent" defined.
v. Thomas, 10 F.(20) 908. -Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F. Em 90(3) (App.D.C.) Delay after conception (20) 579.
and reduction to practice in making application Can 41 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Rights under patent held inexcusable.-Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 covering new and novel combination of old ele- F.(2d) 1006. ments stated.-Myers v. Hadfield-Penfield Steel C90(5) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Patentee of cheap Co., 10 F.(20) 56.
method of manufacture of known article not mo 42 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) New combination of old entitled to monopoly in use of article.-Dovan elements, producing a new and useful result, is Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord Tire patentable.-Belknap v. Wallace Addressing Co., 10 F.(20) 598. Mach. Co., 10 F.(2d) 602.
Om90(5) (App.D.C.) Tests by one employed (C) Utility.
by same company as inventor held a reduction
to practice.--De Forest v. Hartley, 10 F.(20) Cm49 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Infringement lends 901, 903; White v. Same, 10 F.(20) 904. force to claim of utility against infringer.-Wil- Delay in filing application by one who has esliam Bros. Aircraft Corporation v. Gould-Mer- tablished prior conception and reduction to sereau Co., 10 F.(20) 44.
practice is not bar to award of priority.-Id. ww49. (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Long unexplained non- Om 90 (5) (App.D.C.) Prior conception, withuse gives inference against utility.-Spengler out diligence in reducing invention to practice, Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F.(20) 579. will not entitle inventor to priority.-Petersen
v. Thomas, 10 F.(20) 908. (D) Anticipation,
en 91 (2) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Prior inventions ad. On 51(1). (U.S.D.C.III.) What would infringe missible to show state of art and aid in conpatent, if later, is anticipation, if earlier. - struction.-Spengler Core Drilling Co. Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co., 10 F. Spencer, 10 F.(22) 579. (2d) 536.
m91(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patentee must Om51(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Actual disclosure may
tablish claim to use antedating a prior use, by be by lecture and publication in trade paper:
evidence of at least equal quality to that estabDovan Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord lishing prior use.-Alfred Hale Rubber Co. v. Tire Co., 10 F.(2d) 598.
Morse & Burt Co., 10 F.(20) 843. ww5! (2) (App.D.C.) Installation of device 9!(3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held not to enon railway car held a reduction to practice, as title junior party in interference proceeding to affecting right to priority in interference pro- award of priority.-Buckwalter v. Pratt, 10 F. ceeding.–Campbell v. Gilpin, 10 F.(20) 644.
(2d) 912. Cm 54 (U.S.D.C.III.) Anticipation exists even if Eww.91(3) (App.D.C.) Evidence of priority of anticipatory device did not operate as perfect- conception held not so doubtful as to be inadely as patent.-Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plat- quate to support finding.-Clark v. Birdsey, 10 ing Co., 10 F.(20) 536.
F.(20) 1001. Om 62 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Party must establish Om91(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence held to anticipation beyond a reasonable doubt, to de
sustain defense of prior invention.-Myers v. clare patent invalid.-Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co. Hadfield-Penfield Steel Co., 10 F.(20) 56. v. Hauck Mfg. Co., 10 F.(20) 834.
On91 (4) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to estab
lish priority of conception of patent for im. (E) Prior Public Use or Sale.
proved edge of plaster board.-Clark v. Birdsey, 78 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Prior use to invalidate
10 F.(20) 1001. patent must antedate invention, or have been more than two years before date of filing appli
IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS cation.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10
THEREON. F.(20) 838.
Ono 101. (App.D.C.) In interference proceed(F) Abandonment.
ing, claims given broad interpretation, war
ranted by terms, when read in light of appliC82 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Abandonment not to be cation.-Campbell v. Gilpin, 10 F.(20) 644. based on nonuse because of excessive cost.- Om 106(1) (App.D.C.) Applicant, barred by Dovan Chemical Corporation v. Corona Cord two-year public use from procuring patent, Tire Co., 10 F.(20) 598.
held not entitled to destroy rights of another. ww83 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Subject-matter of pat- Hambuechen v. Schorger, 10 F.(20) 1006. ent for which divisional application was not Om 106(5) (App.D.C.) Right of party to intermade until more than three years after re- ference proceeding to make contested claims quired must be treated as abandoned.-Strom- must be challenged by motion to dissolve interberg Motor Devices Co. v. Benecke & Kropfference at inception of proceeding.–Rocke v. Mfg. Co., 10 F.(20) 405.
Bogdonoff, 10 F.(20) 1005. Om83 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That patentee per- Om 109 (App.D.C.) Motion to amend applicamitted prior application to lapse and trans, tion after taking of testimony as to reduction ferred claims to subsequent application held to practice held properly denied.-Clark v. Birdnot to show abandonment of claims.--French v. sey, 10 F.(20) 1001. Buckeye Iron & Brass Works, 10 F.(20) 257. ml 12(1) (App.D.C.) Doctrine of res judicaAmw 87' (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Duty rests upon de- ta and estoppel by former judgment applies to fendant to prove abandonment beyond reason- adjudications made in Patent Office.-Malone v. able doubt.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., Hay, 10 F.(20) 905. 10 F.(20) 838.
Com 112(2) (App.D.C.) Commissioner held not
foreclosed, under rule of res judicata, from III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.
passing on merits of application.-In re Wood90 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patents of earlier some, 10 F.(20) 1003. application, but making no conflicting claims, l12(3), (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Presumption of vado not aid defense of prior invention.-Williams lidity of issued patent may be rebutted by Bros, Aircraft Corporation v. Gould-Mersereau proof.-Alfred Hale Rubber Co v. Morse & Co., 10 F.(20) 44.
Burt Co., 10 F.(2d) 843. Em90 (2) (App.D.C.) Deliberate suppression en 112(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Manufacture of of invention precludes successful attack device under later patent held not to negative
For cases In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER infringement.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass struction otherwise permissible.- Hauser v. Works. 10 F.(20) 257.
Simplex Window Co., 10 F.(20) 457. 113(7) (App.D.C.) Error on part of Patent Office in case involving highly technical sub
X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON
TRACTS. ject-matter must be clearly shown.-De Forest v. Hartley, 10 F.(20) 901, 903; White v. Same,
(C) Licenses and Contracts. 10 F.(20) 904.
w211(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Making of V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LET
chine to perform same functions as patented TERS PATENT.
machine not exercise of rights under license.
Bucher & Gibbs Plow Co. v. International HarOm 118 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Claims consisting of
vester Co. of America, 10 F.(20) 24. complicated elements are not favored by courts. -Johnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F.
XI. REGULATION OF DEALINGS IN PAT(2d) 793.
ENT RIGHTS AND PATENTED Om 118 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patent need not de
ARTICLES. scribe all possible modes of application in order to obtain best results.-Abrahams v. Universal
2222 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Proof of marking or of
infringement after notice necessary for suit Wire Co., 10 F.(20) 838. Owl 20 (App.D.C.) Applicants not entitled to
after expiration.-Robinson v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., patent on broad claims canceled from prior
10 F.(20) 384. application on division being required.-In re
XII. INFRINGEMENT. Woodsome, 10 F.(2d) 1003. em 129 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Employee, going with
(A) What Constitutes Infringement. competitor after applying for patent, is estop- On 234 (U.S.D.C.III.) Infringer cannot escape ped to deny patent is valid.—Johnson Automat
by giving new names to patented things.ic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F.(2d) 793.
Sloan Valve Co. v. John Douglas Co., 10 F.(20) em 129 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Utility of patented 885. combination cannot be denied by one who has On 235 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Retaining principle adopted it.--Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co.,
and mode of operation and attaining result by 10 F.(20) 838.
use of same or equivalent mechanical means
constitutes infringement, notwithstanding form IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
has been changed.-General Electric Co. v.
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F.(20) 851. (A) In General.
On 236 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patent for form is On 157(1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Claim involving avoided by change of form, but patent for submechanism found in every sort of automatic stance cannot be so avoided.-Lyon v. Boh, 10 machinery should not be broadened beyond its F.(20) 30. literal language.-Johnson Automatic Scale Co. na 253 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Patent advancing art v. Ginn, 10 F.(20) 793.
only slightly given narrow scope.-Spengler Om 163 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Employee, going with Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer, 10 F.(20) 579. competitor after applying for patent, is es- m255 (U.S.D.C.III.) Patentee, by advertistopped to deny patent is valid, and is bound by ing replacement of worn parts by replacement its claims according to its clear language.- of assembly unit, held not to have licensed pubJohnson Automatic Scale Co. v. Ginn, 10 F. lic to make such unit.-Connecticut Telephone (20) 793.
& Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F.(20)
823. (B) Limitation of Claims.
Difficulty in making repair, arising from patOm 165 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.). Patentee is entitled entee's form of manufacture, does not entitle to advantages inherent in disclosed invention user to make replacement, if repair is possible. duly claimed, whether he understood them or
-Id. not.-Lyon v. Boh. 10 F.(20) 30.
Patentee, by advertising replacement of as165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Limitation of nar
sembly unit, held not to have fixed its legal row claims held not to affect broad claims not status as a repair part, when in fact it was reso limited.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Brass placement.-Id. Works, 10 F.(20) 257.
Patentee may make and user may repair patEm 165 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patentee is entitled ented device as desired, but user cannot replace to benefit of any novelty inherent in mecha- elements not worn out.-Id. nism disclosed.-Pickett v. F. B. Stearns Co., w259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Sellers of radio parts, 10 F.(20) 414.
adapted and intended for use in particular 0167 (1) (U.S.C.C.A. Mont.) Specifications and manner, held guilty of contributory infringewhole language of patent considered in deter- ment.-Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. mining claims of invention.-Greenawalt v. Precise Mfg. Corporation, 10 F.(20) 517. American Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F.(20) em 259 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Essentials of contribu98.
tory infringement stated.-Belknap v. Wallace Om 167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Patent held not
Addressing Mach. Co., 10 F.(20) 602. confined to particular form shown in drawings to be preferred one.-French v. Buckeye Iron
(C) Suits in Equity. & Brass Works, 10 F.(20) 257.
That specification sets out particular method 283(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That patented deimpossible of attainment held not to prevent vice has never been manufactured held not to protection for results accomplished.-Id.
affect its validity.-French v. Buckeye Iron & Om 168(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Claims
Brass Works, 10 F.(20) 257. strued in light of prior decisions in interference Cam 283(1) (U.S.D.C.III.) Language of patenproceedings and patentee's amendment there- tee's advertising construed to vitalize, and not under, narrowing claims.-Greenawalt v. Amer.
to paralyze, invention.-Connecticut Telephone ican Smelting & Refining Co., 10 F.(20) 98. & Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F.(20) Om 168(!) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patentee's refus- 823. al to claim invention in one-piece automobile 283(1) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Fact that patent buffer held not to estop him from asserting in- owner had breached contract with defendant fringement by defendant's one-piece buller.- would not be defense to patent infringement Lyon v. Boh, 10 F.(21) 30.
suit.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis ElecPatentee is estopped by acceptance of Patent tric Lamp Co., 10 F.(20) 851. Office rulings.-Id.
Counterclaim to patent infringement suit, em 168 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Patentee, limit- which is legal and not equitable, cannot be ing claim to obtain patent, cannot claim con- set up.-Id.
Cm 297(3) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Preliminary in- Infringer held to have burden of proving junction will be granted, where there has been right to segregation of profits.-Id. prior adjudication sustaining patent and in- m 327 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Decision in another fringement thereof in same or another circuit. circuit held binding on parties and privies.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lyon v. Boh, 10 F.(20) 30. Lamp Co., 10 F.(20) 851.
Ono 327 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patent decision of Cir. m297(7) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) New matter, other cuit. Court of Appeals in particular circuit than introduced in prior suits to sustain va- binding on District Courts of that circuit.lidity of patent, must be such as to lead court Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Precise to believe patent would have been held invalid, Mfg. Corporation, 10 F.(20) 517. in order to defeat preliminary injunction.General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F.(20) 851.
XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON
STRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT French court's decision, holding patent in
OF PARTICULAR PATENTS. valid, can only raise doubt as to validity where patent was held valid in another circuit which em 328. had before it French court's decision.-Id.
UNITED STATES. New matter set up with old, insufficient to have changed prior decision sustaining patent,
ORIGINAL. will not defeat issuance of preliminary injunction.-Id.
13,163. Disc harrows, held not covered by liw310(7) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Notice required for
cense as affecting liability for roydefense of abandonment must be given by de
alties (C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F.(20) 24. fendant.-Abrahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 635,280. Combined pump and motor, held not F.(20) 838.
infringed (D. C. Wis.) 10 F.(20) 316 (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Defendant to patent
856. infringement suit cannot compel plaintiff to 824,809. Lubricator, claims 1, 2 and 4, held not perform contract wbich it had alleged was il
infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) 10 F.(20) legal and void.-General Electric Co. v. Minne
414. apolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F.(20) 851.
852,848. Coin-receiving automatic music-playCam318(1) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Liability of infring
ing device, claim 1, held valid and ining manufacturer for manufacture and sale of repair parts.-Christensen v. National Brake 866,887. Forwardly inclined blade of rotary fan,
fringed (D. C. nl.) 10 F.(20) 812. & Electric Co., 10 F.(20) 856.
held anticipated and invalid (D. C. Infringer is accountable for profits though enhanced by "improvements” of the patented 935,205. Railroad frog, held invalid (D. C. Pa.)
Pa.) 10 F.(2d) 384. structure.-Id.
10 F.(2d) 381. Om 318(2) (U.S.D.Ç.Wis.). Complainant entitied to finding of both damages and profits 997,358. Double-barrel type rotary core drill, against infringer.-Christensen National
held invalid, not pioneer and not inBrake & Electric Co., 10 F.(20) 856.
fringed (D. C. Cal.) 10 F.(20) 579. Emo 318(3) (U.S.D.C.Wis.) As respects liability 1,009,502. Skylight with automatic fire windows, of infringing manufacturer, "profits” are deter
held invalid for anticipation (C. C. mined by principles applicable to noninfringing 1,018,502. Incandescent lamp and bodies, claims
A. N. Y.) 10 F.(2d) 710. situations.-Christensen v. National Brake & Electric Co., 10 F.(20) 856.
4, 5, 12, and 13, held infringed (D. em318(6) (U.S.D.C.Wis) Determination of
C. Minn.) 10 F.(20) 851. invested capital on accounting for profits.- 1,041,623. Consolidated railroad tariff index, Christensen v. National Brake & Electric Co.,
claims 1 and 3, held invalid (C. C. 10_F.(20) 856.
A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) 725. Taxes and insurance allowable to infringer 1,113,149. Radio frequency oscillations in plate
circuit of audion, held an infringe. on accounting for profits.-Id. Variable overhead cannot be allocated per
ment (C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 F.(20) unit of infringing product, to make sales ap- 1,113,850. Double leaf spring to co-operate with
727. pear unprofitable.- Id. Om319(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohlo) Claimed loss of
breaker arm of igniting device, profits because of infringement, based on
claim 6, held valid and infringprofits from complete manufacture from raw
ed (D. C. III.) 10 F.(20) 823. material, which might have been made in fill- 1,114,398. Relating to flush valve for watering contract, held untenable.-National Tube
closet bowl, claim 2, held valid and Co. v. Mark, 10 F.(20) 430.
infringed (D. C. Ill.) 10 F.(20) Court will resort to doctrine of reasonable
885. royalty, where damages for infringement can
1,128,773. Carburetor attachments, claims 1-6, not be ascertained.-Id.
11, 17-22, and 25–27. held invalid Reasonable royalty may be determined, even
(O. C. A. 11.) 10 F.(20) 405. though no royalty had been fixed, and in ab- 1,139,685. Automobile throttle valve controller, sence of express evidence of amount.--Id.
claim 3, held not anticipated, valid Amount of reasonable royalty for patent in
and infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 10 fringement stated.-Id.
F.(20) 44. 319(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Plaintiff may recov
1,110,808. Apparatus for cooking oil-bearing er gains and profits of defendant in damages
material, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, suffered, notwithstanding that no prayer for
and 15–21, held valid; claims 17recovery of damages suffered by licensees.-Ab
20, held infringed (C. C. A. Ohio) rahams v. Universal Wire Co., 10 F.(20) 838,
10 F.(20) 257. mm319(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Interest on dam- 1,158,186. Machine for wrapping cartons, claims ages on fixed royalty basis calculated from date
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22, held inof infringement, and may be applied to recov
valid; claim 26, held not infringeries of reasonable royalty.-National Tube
ed; claims 28 and 29, held valid Co. y, Mark, 10 F.(20) 430.
and not infringed (D. C. Mass.) 10 Interest allowed on damages for patent in
F.(20) 793. fringement for one-half of period of unreason- 1,166,734. Carburetor attachments, claim 15, able delay in filing master's report where nei
held invalid (C. C. A. II.) 10 F. ther party was to blame.-Id.
(20) 405. Cm322 (U.S.D.C.Wis.) Accounting for profits 1,180,159. Incandescent lamp and bodies, claims by infringer.--Christensen v. National Brake
4, 5, 12, and 13, held infringed (D. & Electric Co., 10 F.(20) 856.
C. Minn.) 10 F.(20) 851.