o>- IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ .**> ^ ^ 1.0 ^1^ 1^ 1.8 m iiM 116 Photographic Sciences Corporation 1Z WEST AAAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 4' .i,*4.«,«.( or ^ n AMERICAN- CASeX '? BEIiATISO TO PATENTS FOR INVEiNTIOxNS Avn COPYRIGHTS FUOM 1789 TO 1862 INCLUDING NUMEROUS MANUSCRIPT CASES DECISIONS O^ APPKALH FROM THE COMMTSSIONKRS OF PATFNTS ANO T.n- .UNDER THE 1>ATKNT AM, COPVKlUilT LAWS TO AND EMBRACING ALSO THE AMEUICAN CASES IN RESPECT TRADE-MARKS ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BY STEPHEN D. LAW CnUNSEI.1.011 AT LAW NEW YORK: rUBLISITED BY THE AUTHOR, AN-n iir BAKEE, VOORIIIS & COMPANY No. 60 Nassau Street. 1868. % ii™ •C; ;•' EiKcrod according to Act of Congress, in tlio year 1802, BY STEPIIKN D. LAW, 1.1 tI,o CI. r;;'.s Orac'o of tho District Court of tho United Statoa for li-.o Soutliern District of Now Yorlc iV»»f \96l C A. Ar.VORD, STEHEOTYPEB AXD PuiyiEZi. h l>.0 TO THE MEMOR OF MY WIFE 1 HI! VOLUM K It AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED. Her intereft in this work encouraged mc in undertaking it, and has been a conftant incentive to my exertions in its preparation. Her cheerful fociety made light and pleafant my earlier labors upon it; and had her life been fpared, to no one could this volume have been dedicated more appropriately, or with more fincere pleafure, than to her. Her early death, which made fad and lonely the hours fpent in its completion, and which has (hadowed my life witli forrow. has left me only the melancholy fatisfaction of infcribing it to her Memory. f i , EXTLANATOIIY I'KKl' ACE. This voliinie h a T)I-,'('sf, or riitlior u Dlj^'oatcd Abstract, of iill tlio Aiucricaii Ciwes, w. I'ar us tliny <'«)iil(l be ul)taiiie(l, rcliitiiij; to I'atfiitrt lor Inventions, Copyri-^'ht, uiul TnuhsMiirks. It ow'i'.s itrt orintructrt n'Hprctiii^ I'litt'iitH, Imvo HU'ii /.'utlitifd fVom the voliitiiiriotirt iiiiihh of Stiite Iti-portM, and in<'or|)onit(>d into thti voltiiiic. I'Vom thirt htati'MU'iit an to the Hovcrnl gonrn'H from which thc^ Cane* DijjfC'rttcd h'lvo iictii rolliH'tt'd, it will ho ut oiK'c apiiarnit that muh cawrt arn very wiih'ly wattorcd, luid that <|iiito a ci»hrtidi!ral)l(j iiiiinher of them arc not within rciich nf the profcrtnion at lar^jo, oxci'iit nt I'onHidrrahU' dilllculty and fXpciiKic and tliu perioral nature and K'opo of the work will also he hewt und('rHto(»d. The i>l.in III- ni(>thod of arraiij^finent adopted hy the .\uthor in tho Digest, and the manner of ciMn^', and referring; to, tho Cases Digested uro Bomowhat pet-idiar, hut it is helievt.-d that they will bu found cou- vonicnt and useful. The di-xc-ted notes are arranged, under tho Bovei'al titles and puh div!s!(»ns, in ClinitKtlogica! order, and, in addition to tho title of the case, there is also given the name of tho Judge hy whom, and tho jthice where, aiul the year in which tho ease was decided. By tiiis arrangement, it is easy to trace tho course (»f .Judicial decision, in resjteet to any qiu'stion, and learn whether there has been any conflict or rliversity in respect to it, and also readily di'lermine tho character and hearing of tho hitest decisions. Tho digested note also carries with it tho weight of authority due to the Judge who decide(l the case, and the date of decision is a guide to (letermine under wliat law any piirticuhir ease arose, and was decided. In digesting tho cases, tho Author haa not confiiu'd liimself to tho Head Notes of lie[iorter8 and otliers, but has carefully read and studied tho cases for himself, and his digested notes have been i)repared from tlio opinions of, and as far as possible they a]>pear in the very language used by, tho Coin-t. I* nas not, however, been tho intention HXI'I.ANATOUY rilKKACi: '. Cdirt i>( tlio CoriitniHHioiu'r lUHV, alxtiit i>nu • liiij^ (|iu>»«tioiirt itrtrt ri'H|ti'ctili;^ SttltO Kl'^KtltM, hicli tlio CiiHCi ■cut tlmt Hiich uniblu iiiiiiiltcr p», exj'i'itt at lire iiiul Hi'opo Autliur ill tlio Uiirtort DigoHted bo I'uuud con* itlt'H and nub title t.f tlio loiii, and tlio (d. By tliiri decision, in 11 iitiy (•(intlict the clmnicter uU(» carrier idcd the casic, vliat law any d liiinself to lly read and 'I'll prejjared in the very he intentiuu I of tlio Autlinr to dl^'i-Kt only nucli pointi m mifjht nioro utrletly lie calli'il tilt* li'adin^ or turniii}^ |)oltitrt of tliu cuMe, Itiit it liait been IiIh aim to .li;{eHt all hik-Ii points aH tliu Court may have deeiiu'r ti» (h'ci«le; or, in other Wonl-*, whattiver the Coiirf, in any eiwe, tleeim-d it nuceMttary and proper to dcelant ami decide lo be the law, iw applieablo to (he qiieHtioiiit arisiti;^ in Hiieii eanc, that tho Author Iuih eonhidi-rcd it to lio liirt duty to di^c.^t ami arran;;e uialcr itrt appropriate lieatti«, lltlil SlIII'MAN of ( 'oMIicitirilt, for tho uMUtiiiico tht*y hitvu im> kimlly atl'oi<|i>i| hiMi ; uiul to Kamiki. nr..VTi'iin>Mii, K*n., of Xi'W York, iukI John Wiij.iam Wallace., Knq., of IMiihiih'Iphiu, thi) I{t*|H»rt( |iri\ih'f;i< of rxtunliiiti); tho cii.-^':^ f''>titaitii>i«<rM, who havu ii»«-«i>tii| him ill liio coni'djon v( caMi>M, mul nthcrwiHv. That tho vohitiio innv he fouiul <'l real pructh'al vahio, and coii- V(>ni«>iit art a nufcrciicu and ri'liiiblo ih uti Authority, in thu ttiiiciTu wi^h and hi)|)i' of TiiK AiriioM. Niw Yonic, S,j>ftmhfr, IHOS. rerut Juit^t^K of |JH>N iiitil Mrtiit of ('oiiriuctitiit, and to Sami'M. t/uiir»(* tor »!ii( Idinj; flic cnru'H .\' ' |>ulili«|ici| ; U ll.lVJ! Il.-..ti>f|.(| vttiiif, mill ciiti- llU xilli'iTi! wirth I'lii; Ai iiinu. OONTExNTS. PlUUTAOa . '*•"* , A TaBIB or AnilHKVIATIONI. . . II . ,. • • • • • • • I I to I I Indix or TiTiKM 18 " ao T*i.n< or C\»M, IN Ai.rii,uiKri(Ai. Ouokh. DimtcT an„ IUvkukki,, Wmi KirKllRNrKHltNUKll TIIK roHMKH TO rAOKH WIIKIir, (.ulMi . L»0 " ftfl Tmiik or (!.\HKH, AnnANu»;i) AiToiioiN,, ,„ tiikik HiiuKOT Matikk. 60 " 74 Tai.ik or Cahkh, ArriHMKi), Aithovko, CH.TinMKi., Dmmm-uovki,, Kv vMiNKi., Kkvumhku, OvKHiiULK,,, Qi KsriuNKo, Ukvkhhici,, dtc. . 7rt « 00 CUKONUtUU.CA.. D.MKsr Ul .. OUb CONTEXTS OF SMTLKMLMAL VOLUMi; IIOUXI) WMJI AliOVU. riiKrAo* TO Coi'yuiuirr and Patknt Lawb M^rm fr V t « f J ^ riiOV.SION OV TUB CoNHT.TfT.OW OF TI.K U. S., AS TO CoPVUimiT AND Tatknth, with Notkb , , Coi'VKioiiT Lawh, 1790 TO 1802, with \otk« Patent Laws, 1700 to 18fl2, witu Notkb InDKX to Coi'VHKiHT LaWS .... Index to I'atknt Laws rAIIKH. 3 tu 5 . " 8 8 " 30 . no " 11 J . 1!;« ♦' 117 . 117 " IL'O f" ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK. New York, Alabama. Abb. Pr., Abbott's Practioo Reports, ^^'•■••> Alubaiujv Reports, and Araer. Law Reg., ) . . ^ ^ or A. L. lit-., } American Law Register, Phihulelphia. Anonymous. j Cases decided by the Justices of the Cir. ) I Court, Dist Col., on appeals frc.;a the de- f Dist.Colu.nl.i.a. I eis.ons ol the Commissioner of l>ateut8 ) Arkansas Reports, and '^rkansas. Attorney General of United States. Anon., App, Cas., Ark., Atiy. Gen., Raid., I3arb. S. C, " Ch., B. Monr., Blackf., Blatchf., Rosw., Bright., Brock., Cal., Chan., Comst., Conn., Cra., Cra. C. C, Ct., Curt., Cush., D. C, Day, Deve., Dov. & Bat., Baldwin's Reports F. S. Circuit Court, Barbour's Supreme Court Rei)orts, *' Chiuicery »t B. Monroe's Reports, Blackford's Reports, Blatchford's Rei)orts U. S. Circuit Court, Bosworth Reports, Bright ly's Reports, Brockeubrough'3 Reports U. S. Cir. Ct., California. Chancellor. Comstock's Reports, Connecticut Reports, Cranch's Reports U. S. Supreme Court. " Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Connectic'.i . Curtis' Rej)orts U. S. Circuit Court, Cushing's Re])orts, District Columbia. Day's Reports, Devereaux's Reports, Devcreaux «fc Battle's Reports, 3d Circuit. Kcw York. Kew York. Kentucky. Indiana. 2d Circuit. New York. Peimsylvania. 4th Circuit. New York. Connecticut. Dist. Columbia. Ist Circuit. Massachusetts. Connecticut. Court of Claims. North Carolina. 12 AUHUEVIATIONS VSKV IN THIS WORK. 1 !• ( Dt'iiio, Doiuo'h IJoports, DiUT, Uuer's Ucports, E. D. Smith, E. D. Smith's Roportn, Edw. Cb., Edwards' Cliancery Iluports, Fes. on Pat., Fessonden on Patents, 2d edition, Gall, Goo., Gilp, Gray, Greenlf., Ilalst. Ch., Ilarriiig., Hilton, Iloff. Ch., How., How. App. Gas., How. Pr., r HI., Ind., John., Jones Eq., Jour. Fr, Inst., Gallison's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Geori^ia Reports, and Gilpin's ] Reports U. S. District Court, Gray's Reports, Grcenlcaf's Re])orts, Ilalsted's Chancery Reports, Harrington's Reports, Hilton's Reports, Hoft'man's Chancery Reports, Howard's Reports U. S. Supreme Court. Court of Appeal Cases, Practice Reports, (( (( Illinois Reports, and Indiana Rej)orts, and Jolmson's Reports, Jones' Equity Reports, Journal Franklin Institute, La., Louisiana. Law Int. & Rev., Law Intelligencer and Review. u ^* * [Law Reporter, 1st Series, Mart., Mass., Mas., McAllis., Mete, McLean, 3Iich., Mir. Pat. Off., Mo., JNIo. Law Rep., ATo. L. Rep., MS., Martin's Reports, Massachusetts Reports, and Mason's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, McAllister's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Metcalf 8 Reports, McLean's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Michigan Reports, and Mirror of the Patent Office, Missouri Reports, and |- Monthly Law Reporter, 2d Series, Manuscript C.'iscs. New York. New York. New York. New York. Boston. 1st Circuit. Georgia. Peimsylvania. Massachusetts. ]\laine. New Jersey, Delaware. New York. New York. New Y ork. New York. Illinois. Indiana. New York. North Carolina. Philadelphia, Boston. Louisiana. Massachusetts. 1st Circuit. California. Massachusetts. Tth Circuit. Michigan. Washington. Missouri. Boston. AnnUKV' lATIONS USED IN THIS WORK. 13 I^. Car., North Carolina. j^_ I[.^ Now Hampshire. N. Hamp., New Hainpsiiiro Reports, N. Y. Leg. Obs., Now Yorli Loj^al Observer, 14 ilea' Keg. , Niles' Register, New Tlatnpsliire. New York. WaHhujgton. Opin., Ohio, Paige, Taiiie, Pa., IViiii., Opinions of the Attorneys General U. S., "Washington. Ohio Reports, and Ohio. Paige's Chancery Reports, Paiiie's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Reports, ^''or'p'^L "jou"!*' \ I'ennsylvania Law Journal, l>ot., Peters' Reports U. 8. Supreme Court. Pet. C. C, Peters' Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Pick., Pickering's Reports, Rich. Law, Richardson's Law Reports, S. Car., Sotith Carolina. Sand. Ch., Sandford's Chancery Reports, Sand. C. C, Sandford's Superior Court Reports, Serg. & R., Sergeant & Rawle, Story, Story's Report U. S. Circuit Court, Suran., Sumner's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, Sup. Ct, Supreme Court U. S. Upt. on Tr. IVIk., Upton on Trade-Marks, U. S. Law Jour., or U. S. L. Jour Verm., Vt., Wall, Jr., AVash., Wend., ::K S. Law Journal, Vermont Reports, Vermont. New York. 2d Circuit. Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 3d Circuit. MassacluLsctts. South Carolina. New Y'ork. New York. Pennsylvania. 1st Circuit. 1st Circuit. New York. Connecticut. Vermont, Wallace, Jr.'s, Reports U. S. Circuit Court, 3d Circuit. Washington's Reports U. S. Circuit Court, 3d Circuit. Wendell's Reports, New York. Cleveland. West. Law .Tour., ) y^^^^^^^ ^^^ j^^^^nal, or W. L. Jour., ) ' Whart., Whart. Dig., Wheat., Wood. & Min., Wright, Pennsylvania. Wharton's Reports, Wharton's Digest. Wheaton's Reports U. S. Supreme Court. Woodbury & Minot's Reports U.S.Cir. Ct,. 1st Circuit. Wright's Reports, Ohio. I A A INDEX OF TITLES. A. «•*«"• AI3ANDON3IENT. A. Of Copyright and Manuscript, . B. Of Invention, * * * * • '81 1. Before ratent granted, . 2. After Patent ynrnted, . . * .02 ^•^<'fenceofan(lwhotodecidl. ' ' ' ' ' ' ^* 4. Proof of See Evidexce, U i ' ^® C. Of Traile-Marks, . ABRIDGEMENT OF BOOK wlmtJ«.\.i '•.•••• 08 ACCOUNT OF PROFITS ^^u,' ^ ^oj^waoy, .... eg ACTIONS. ^- f0''t of aclion, ami principles gomrning, . ,„. 3. Parties to. See also Equity, B. 2. a. Plaintifts, ... *. Defendants, . HO See also CoRPOEATiojfs. ' ^^^ 4. mseontinuance of by tojiom, . 5. Defences to. See Defences ' * ' ' * ^^^ 6 Pleadings in. See Pleading. lTr\ '" ^'•"^^■M-'^^ks, and defences to, . oee also Aliens : Cohrtq n . t.^ ' • • ^ 1 '^ ADDITIONS TO A LITkR^RY wn^T'''^^'''^'^' ^'^ I^-^^^ction, C. AGREEMENTS ' ^^'^^*^ "^' "« ^^""S^^'^' • • . lio A. As to Copyrights, B. As to Patents, . . . * ' ' ' ' * • -120 See also AssiGNMENi^, C, and License, A. ' ' * • 121 10 IXDKX OK Tiri.KS. AI.IKNB. — AHHIGNHKNT. ALIKNS. A. ]liL,'lits !uul li.ihiliticH of, in respect to Piitcnts, .... I)i6 Si'K also Patknts, K. B. Ki^'hlH (tf, us to iiif'ringciucnt of Triidt'-Markfl, t • .128 AMnKJlHTV IX I'ATKNTS, t'lloct of, US to thtir viilidify, . . . i-ju 8i'0 also Composition ok Ma'jtku, 15. ; Imi-kovkment, B. ; Maciiim:, 15.; Sl'KCIl'K'ATIO.V, JJ. AMOUNT IN CONTIlOVKI{SV,lio\vam-ctsJuris(li<:fion in Patent Cases, 132 ANALOlJOrS rsK. See Doum.K t'rti;; N k\v Ai-i-ucatiox. ANAIiYSIS, importanee of evidence decideil by, ..... \.ui ANSVVKH. See MtiiMTV, 15. 5. Al'I'EAI-S IN I'ATKNT CASP:S. A. To tlie Suiireiiu! Court, . , . , . , , . 133 See also WniT ok Kukou. T>. To .Iiisliccs of tlic Circuit Court, District Columbia. 1. W/iiit iii ; w/ii;n fleii and when not ; rchen lost, . . , 135 2. Diiti/ (>/' ('oninu'snioncr ({f I'atentH in cases o/\ . . , 187 3. Jtirisdu'tion, of justices on appe((l, ..... 138 4. licasons of ajipeal ; siiffi,ciency of, 141 5. Practice in cases of appeal, 143 APPLICATION FOR PATENT. A. When and by wlioimnade ; effect of ; effect of delay in making or prosecuting, 143 B. Powers and duties of Conunissioner of Patents on applications for, and in granting patents, . , . , .149 C. Witlidrawal of; effect of, 153 ART. What is ; wlien patentable, 154 See also Ekkect ; I'rixciplk ; Pkocess. ARTS, LOST. When patentable 155 AliTICLE OF Manufacture. See Manufacture. ASSIGNEE. A. Of Copyright and Manuscript, 15G B. Of Patent. 1. Who is, under the Statnte, 157 2. Genercd rif/hts of, 157 3. Whc?i Pateiit may issue to, 158 4. Whe?), may maintain action, . . . . . .159 5. Ilight of, as to Disclaimer. See Disclaimeu, C. 6. " in cases of Reissue. See Reissue ok Patent. 7. " in Extensions. See Extension, C. C. Of Trade-Marks, rights of, 160 ASSIGNMENT. A. Of Copyright and Manuscript ; requisites of ; -what amounts to, 161 INDEX OF TITLK8. 17 ABHIUNMI.NT. — roMI'OHITUlS Of UATTRR. I'M. II . ISiiJ . 128 . liiO ; ]\Iac;iiink, iitcnt Cases. 132 . 133 . in5 . 137 , 133 . 141 . 143 in inukiiisi jlio.itions . 143 140 . 153 154 , . 155 150 . 157 167 . 158 159 \TENT. . 160 rnoimts to, 101 ii. Of Iiivciilioii (»r l*;it('ut. 1. W'/ittt mill/ hv. nHxhjueily and vhru j whnmmj nmke ; khnh «/, U\'2 2. Jiecordhuj oj\ Kjl 3. Whdt tH ti> ; ron«fnirfi'on n/, KDi ('. Of I'iitciit or Copyriulit, liy o|,t'riitioii (if law, . , . , llS'.i ArrACllMKNTS l\ I'ATKXr CASKS. A. Comnu'iu'i'iiK'nt of miits by, 171 U. T(» oiiforco obtMlunco to |)r(ici'S8, 171 C. I'racfi<'0 in ('ascM of, • I7n AUTIIOU. Who is; rij,'lils of, ill his |.roi»erty, 173 Soe also Ciiauth; C'oi'VJshinr, V. II. Bn.L IX K(2UrrV. Sco Kwinv, II., 2, 3. BILLS OF FXCICITIOXS IX I'ATKXT C.VSES. Wlien takon ; what to coiitiiiii, 174 BOOK AX I) COPY OF. Wh:il is, un.k-i- the copyri^'ht laws, . . 17(i BUBUEX OF I'llOOF. Sio EviDicNtiK, A. C. CAVEAT, purpose and clfci't of, 177 CHAUOE OF .iriXJE IX I'ATEXT ACTIOXS, pmotico as to, . 17h ClIAllTS, ^[AFS, IMJIXTS, .t.;., oxtcnl of Copyriirht in, . . .17!) COLOUAIILE ALTKUATIOXS AND VAIIIATIOXS, bearing of, as to invention, . . , IbO See also DouHLE Use; Equivalent; Form; Invextion, E. COMBINATION. A. What is ; what pateiifjible; constrnetion of patents for, . .181 B. What an Infrinj,'cinent of, and what not, 1 80 COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. A. I*ower of, on applications for and in granting patents. See Ar- Pi.iCATioxs Fou Patents, B. B. Power of, on Interferences. Sec Interferences, A. C. Power of, on Surrenders and Reissues. See Rkissue of Pat- ent, B. D. Power of, on Extensions. See Extension of Patent, B. E. Power of, in cases of Ajipeal. See Appkals, B. 2. F. Action of ; Avhen conclusive, 191 G. Acting Commissioner ; powers of, lO.*) COMPILATION OF A BOOK ; what is, 19.0 COMPOSITION OF MATTER. A. What patentable, 194 B. How should be set forth in Specification, . . . . . 1 9.l C. Infringement of Patent for, ] 00 2 II IN'DKX or TITLKS. OOMOtlKM.— DAMAOM IN PATINT OAIM. fAi, ;!ii I I til 'Ill I C()N'(iUKSS, lt>i;i>tlativ(> t><>W(>r of, in rfHpcct to pittoiitN, . • . . 11»7 CONSIDKIIATION ON SAI-K OK PATKNTS, wlu-n may \w impoacluMl, ini) CONSIMKACV ACJAINS'I'I'ATKNT, .m.t <.»; .... 200 V COXSTUrCTION Ol' I'A'rKNT. S.... iViiivr, P. CONTUAC'I'S AS TO PATKNTS. Sco AuitKiaiKXTS. COI'IKS OK I'AI'KliS KUOM I'ATKNT OKKICK, Ik.w lar cvi.UiKc, . joo COl'VRKJMT. A. Oil wliaf foiiiiilcd ; nntiiro of property 111 ; what incliulos, , 20R ]]. Sultjcct iiialtcr of, 200 Sen uIho AiiuinuKMiCNT; Ciiakts; Comimi.a i kin ; DicnoNAitiKH; DuAMATU^ CoMi'oHiTUiNs; K.NoitAViNUH ; Mai*8 ; MuMic ; I'i-an; l{i;i'oi[rs; IJkvikws; 'ruANsi.AiioN'. C Wlio ciitillcil to t:ik(< :ui(l lioM, 210 1). How iicqiiiri'd ; rij^Iitto; how lost, ...... '2l'i K. Hucond toriii of, to whom Ih>Ioii|;;h, ...... 214 F. AlKUldoiimcllt of. S»'0 AltAN'DoVMK.VT, A. G. Actions respect iii<;. See AiTlovs, A. II. Atfreeineiits as to. Se(( AfiKKK.MKNTS, A. I. Assi<,'nineiit!uul transfer of. Sec Assigxek; AssKiXMKVT, A., C. J. Antlior, wlio is. See Aniiou. K. IJook, what is. See IJook. L. Courts, jiiristlictioM as to. See Couhth, A. M. Injunctions, in respect to. See iN.uiNcno.vs, A. N. I'ubUcation, what is. Soo PrnuoATiox. O, Translation, ('opyrii^ht in. See Thaxslatiov. 1'. Violation of. Si'c I.\Ki;iN(ii;Mi:NT, A. COPtPOU.VTIONS, ri-rhlsan.l liahililies of, as to Pjitentfl, . . . .215 COSTS IN PATKXT SUITS, when recoveruble, Avhut taxable, . .217 COUNSEL FKKS, whether recoverable as damages, 219 (OUKTS, .lUKISDRTIOX OF. A. In respect to Copyriijjhts and Manus(M*ipts, .... 220 See also Actioxs, A. ; Kquity, A. ; Injunctions, A. ; Lettkus ; ]\IaNUSCKI1'T8. B. In respect to [)atents. 1. Siqn'enie Court, Unitfid States, 222 See also Aim'eals, A. ; IJii.i. of Excepiions ; Writ of Error. 2. Circuit Gotirts, United States, 223 See also Account ; Equity, B. ; In.tunction, B. 3. District Courts, United States, under acts of 1790 and 1793, 227 _^ 4. State Courts, 228 C. Authority of decisions of, in otlier Courts, .... 230 -■ - ^^.-,------ D. DAMAGES IN PATENT CASES, who liable for ; measure of, &c., . 230 See also Counsel Fees. . 'iOii \Ksr, A., C. . 216 217 . 219 220 ; Lkttkus ; . 222 It of Erbor. 223 and lion, 227 . 228 . 230 If, &c., . 230 I vMenco, . 200 idoH, . 20H 1 . 200 m KTIONAKIKW; m ui.u ; Ti.an; ^ . 210 . 212 . 214 INDKX OF TTTI.ES. 10 OBOLAEATIOir.— RTIDIIMCII IN I'ATKNT OAIBI. , Mai. DKCF.AIf.VriON'. Hco KviriKNCK, I).; Plkaimvo, A. DKFKN<'l'^'l'*> ''•^'''•'■'^"'''^^"''"^-^^ ...... 241 Si'»' !iN'» , rijxlit of iimlfr, ami to maki>, 2fil IjKTIONAKIKS, (JAZKTTKI'.IJS, Ac, I'xti'iit of ('o|.yii{,'ht in, . . 252 DISCON'KliV, wli.if is, ami wliiil piitcntalilf, 252 DOriWiK rSK, wlial is; when iialoutablo, 254 Si'i' also Ni;\v Ai-iM.ttATiov. DKAMATIC (M>MP()srri()N, li^'ht of author in, .... 255 DKAWIN'iS, riMjuisitis of; of what t'vidi'iico, .... 250 E. EFFKCT, whether patcntahlc; how fur t'vulentjo of invention, . , 260 See also I*Kix(;iri.K; I'uockhs. KN(}1{AVIX(;S. Si'o CiiAuis. EQUITY, Jurisdiction of, and I'lcadinj^s in. A. As to C'tpyrij^hts iind Manuscripts, 202 Sec also AfTi'ioNrt, A. ; Dkamatio Comi'ositioms ; Injunctions, A. B. As to Patents. 1. General Jni-iiidictiony • . 203 See also Fieri. m;i» Issuk; In.iitnctio\, H. 2. Orhjiiud hill ; partiea to; xohat to act forth / Multl/iiriouS' neaa of ; amendment and diamiHaid of , , , ,207 3. Suj^plenuntal and croaa bill ; bill qf discovery. » , , 209 4. Demurrer, 270 Sec also Pi.KADiXG. 5. Anawer ,• what to set forth ; when conaidered only aa an ojjida- vit / amendment of ..*..,. 270 See also Dkiknces; Gexebal Issuk. C. As to Trade-Marks, 272 See also I.vji'xcrio.v, C. EQUIVALENTS, doctrine as to, and application of, ... . 275 See also Form; Ivvkn'tioxs, C. ESTOPI'F.L, application of doctrine of, in patent cases, .... 27S EVIDENCE IN PATENT CASES. A. Burden of proof, on whom lies, , 282 B. Presumptions, , . 283 See also Paxknt, P. 2 ; Reissue op Patent, C. I • H\ 90 INUKX OF TITLES. IVIIWiiCN IX rATMT OAaU.— rOHIIOK rATIKT. I'll Ui I KVIDKNCi: IN TATKNT i'\SKH--vo„t!mtf,i. V, I)«>|MmiliiiiiH, uliiit iir(>, 384 1. /h- f>i-nu ettin' iiin/ir Ai'tM o/ f'onf/fi>AM, 28S 2. Uiultr nitfi of t'luirtynr <'<>inmiHHiun^ ..... 287 3. (Ttiilir rnl<» n/t/u/'iitftil fijit-e^ 2HH P. iK'cliiraliiiiiH ami iK'ti nl'piirtU'H ami tliinl IMTMOFM, . , . 200 K. Parol III. I si'comlary t'viil«'iiri>, 20;j F. I'ul)lic rt'cronli ami paporM ; Vcrtlict, 204 O. Witiu'sHcM l.Conijuli ni'jf iiikI vrJ\ .... 3. PartiiSy Kxdtniniitlon of\ , Sfc also Fvti»KN, and force of, . . . EXTENSION OF LETTKKS FATKNT. A. Who may apply for and olitain ; in what cn^i^'i, . , . B. Power of Corntnissioncr on applicatiofis for; (Conclusive naturo of 20.-1 20H 21)H 300 300 .iOJ 301 307 311 312 813 316 319 1 action of, ^ C. l{i<;li(s of Assii^'iiocs and others nmlor, D. Authority and force of Fxtended Patent, See also I'^xtknhiox ov Patkxt, B. E. Extension of special laws, and rights under 320 321 327 323 l'1 i I F. FEIGNED ISSUE IN PATENT ACTIONS. A. When ordered and practice on, 32C B. P]ffect of verdict in, .....,,, 331 FOREIGN PATENT ; bearing of, on Homo patent ; how proved, . . 332 J ! VMIM. . . . 281 . a87 . 200 I . . . 20:) . 204 . 20ft 208 . 208 300 . SCO 803 . 302 MTKi;, C; In- of, 304 . 807 311 . 31'2 313 . 310 . 310 isivc niituro of . 320 . 321 I . 827 ; . 325 INDEX OF TITLEii. 81 riMUI.— UMUNOTtOKg. FOKM; clitiii^'i'* lii« whfMi patfrititblo, nn0 uImo Ci>l.<>ltAIII.». Al.TKKATIONH. FIlAri), AND KUAI'Drr-KNT IN'IKNT IN UKSl'KCT TO W K^nTH; wlial tU'tnuutl to In-, uii«l v\\\>v\ of, , , . . . GKNKUAF. ISSl'K, AND NoTKK Ol' Sl'KCIAI. MATTKIl. A. KvidiMicu iindiT ^fiK*riil \**\Wy H. Wlii'ii iiotico ri'ci:il plfiis itllovvitlilo, ...... 0()()l)NVIM> <)l' IM'SINKSS; wliut in, aiwl property in, , GKANTKK OF I'vVrKN'r, who Ih. S«'u Akhkinkk, IJ. 1. . 8:ia VT. 3a7 . .'Ul .'!4-J . .'UO li47 . .148 i532 . .')5S 357 . 300 .105 . 32!) 331 )roved, . • 332 I. TMPnoVK^nONTS. A. Wliat patciitaMc ; ami lo what oxteiit, .... I{. IIow shrxihl \w sft toi'th, C. I'att'iit for ; what Hi'curcd by; coimtruction of, . , , INKI{IN(:K^n':NT. A. Of Copyrij^ht ; what {•onstituteH, ..... JJ. Of I'ati'iits. 1. Genenil />rini'i/>li!n aa to, St'o also AtrnoNs, II.; In'VENTIoV, E. 2. Wlidf hill to mnoii/it ^>, ...... St'u also Co.MiiiNATioN, II. ; Ct)Mi'osrnoN of Maiteii, C. ; Dksiqx. 3. Wh'it field not to (tmount to, ;170 4. Actions for, and (h'/ence« hi. iSoc Acrio.vs, B. 1, 3; EtiUirv, H. 1 ; Dia'KNCKH. 5. Eindence as to, and />// ir/ioni derided. Seo Evidence, II. 3. C. Of Trade-Marks; what Ih, atul nuturo of, See also EiiUirv, C. INJUNCTIONS. A. In respoct to Copyrights ; when will issue and extent of, , 13. In respect to I'atoiits. 1. General 2)rinc!ples appUi'idde to all kinds of^ . . 2. Preliminary or Provisional, a. AUowanci' or refusal of, , See also L^jumrriONS, IJ. 2. d. h. Right to, from exelusive possession or former recoveries; cL?r- acter of sudi exclusive possession, 088 c. Security in place of, or on granting, 306 (/. Practice on motions for, 308 (!. Continuance or dissolution of, ...... 401 373 377 370 1*» a ii I I "I UN »f i III '1 'ii •■ " » n IN'DKX OK TITf KH out *-• llwSK jl H) IXJ UNCTION'S— •,./*///,»«,//. tl« Fhttit nt- l*,ri>tiuiil ; ir/tfH (/luihUtl ami teA«H notf , , 401 Hl'l< nUo lNJt'M<'l|itMM, II. I. 4. Vinliition nf\ iiiul iiltiii'/inti'nt on^ 407 Ct III rt'*«|>f('i III 'I'rikili' .Mitrko, . . • i . 4Utl Ht'i< itlxo Ktjiiiv, ('. ; 'ritAiii>:-M.\uKM, C, INsrKcTloN OK MACIIIVKS; wh..|i.,nlmu|, \\& INTKNT. A. I'iiti'iiiiiMlity ot*. Set' 1*1 nroKK. It. MtMriii'^ of, i\% to .\litiiit INTKUKKUKNCKS ON AI'I'MCVTIONS KOU I'.VTKNTS. A, Wlirii iirisf, mill ^I'licriil imtiiri> nt', 417 SiM' iiImu Im^i ivai.knix ; Invkmidv, K. i\, rt'U('tii-i> ill ciiscH lit', uikI f\iili'iic«> in, * • * • • 418 Hfi' iiUo KviiiKN.K, C!. 'i\ I)., K., ({. IXTIfODUC^KIt OK INVKNTION; howiirotocU'il, . , . .419 INVKNTION. A. \Vli!kl IN, iiinl w litii |Kttriit:il)li>, ...... 420 Set' hImo Coi.iiuaiii.k N'aiiiationk; ('omiiivatiov; ('omi'ohitiov OK Maitku; l)iH«'ovi:itv ; Doini lo I'si:; Kkkkit; Kohm ; ImI'UHVKMI'.NTH; InVKNTOU, a, ; .MAtlllNKH; .MAMfK.VlTl'UK, Auini.K oi- ; Maikiiiai. ; Mkciiamc, Skii.i, ok ; Nkw Ai'i'i.i- rATioN ; I'aiknt, l).; I'lti.Ni It'll:; I'l im-osk; Suijciksiions. B. Pt'rro(!liiij;, or ri'duoiii;; to iiriiclifo ; wlmtiN; iioccssity of; tlili- ^(.'nc» ill, 424 C. Oii^'iimlity niul priority of. Soo Invkntoh, H. ; Piiiou Knowl- i:j>c)i:. Ah to oviiic'iico of, hoc Kvidknik, II. 4. D. Novi'lty iukI utility of, J'29 Am to t'vidciK'o of, nee Kvidknx'K, II. 8. E. LK'iitity ot', 4.15 »Si't' also ('oi,ouahi,eVauiatiokh; EtjuivALENXs; Fou.\i; Intkh- KKUKNCK8. INVENTOR. A. Who is; luid ri^'hts of, !iM such, ...,,, 441 D. First and original ; Hubscnuont ; rights of, , . . , , 444 .1. JOINT INVENTION AND PATENT; when and rights under, . . 452 JUUISDICTION. Of Courts, sec Couuts ; Equity. Of Justices' Circuit Court. See Appeals, B. 3. JURY ; what (luestions dt'tcrminod by, 454 See also Patent, P. 4. if r«TMI AVO MMIfMV. r*Mi. 407 ■ LKCTI'IIKS, riulit ofiiroporly in MllTKIlS, |in)|Mriy in iiikI |)ro(t«ii of, . , LKKNMK. A. What ('<>iiNtiiiirt»« ; ri;;li(ri lUMlor; vfli<«t n( tikkiti'Xi • • . 400 S»"it iiUo Ahhhjnmi-'.m, li. ; KxiKHMioN or I*.\TicNr, U. n. Uciorilitiu, iiml triiii't'iT of, 401 ('. roriiiiiirt* of; Ai'tioiii on, »»*»,,, 40^ LIMITATIONS. A. or A|>|)lit'itti<>ii<4 Cor I'atrtiti*, 400 11. Of Api'tal-* to .IuMtiot'<»' C'irouit Court, 400 v. ort'oiiiiiiciK-iii-; actiiiiix, ...••«». 400 LOST A UTS. Sio AaiH, Limr. . 411) 4'.'i) CoMroHrrioN i;\|)l;iitiui,oij.vni,K Ai,TKii.VTinva; CoAnsiNATiox, A.; Composi- tion OF ]M.vrri:u, A. ; 1)i-H, 45,1, 009. M 3 W. L. Jour., 144, 1845, 114, 405, 581, 371. U 6 Ojiin., IH, 1H48, 447, 597, 005. M 6 " 3(5, 1853, 15:i. I) G " 38, 1853, 137. •• MS.," 1857, 153, 177, 002. II MS.," 1859, 259. Af>plcton V. Chfp^TB, ilS. (A pp. Ci\i>.), D. C, 18(1(1, 429, 452. " Dwijjlit V. 1 N. Y. L. OI.H., 195 N. Y. , 1H43. " Ik'iiio t'. 4 BlatehC, ii 18,J7. ArtiiHtroiiK 1'. llariloubeck, 8. N. Y. L. Obs. ,43 (1 1 1841, 279, 40.5, 401, 40(5. Ariiuld V. liiHlioj), MS. (App. Cas.), D.C., 1841, 135, 138, 1.50, 288,200,418,453, 027, 073, 071. " V. Potter, II II H 1800, 423. Arthur, Kx parte, II II a IHCl, 311. ALkiiiHou V. lioardman, II 11 (( 1847, 283, 284, 291, 442. " V. " MS., N.Y., 1851, 205, COO. Atwill, Ferrctt v. 1 Blatchf., 151, il 184G. " V. " 3 " 30, ii 1840, 103, 174, 211, 270, 641, 644. '' '( ••(l-jKl ;i|',*- Bubcock V. DcRonor, liackiiH V. Gould, It'.icon's Case, " Peck V. Badger, Orr v. Barley, llawley v. Bagot, Gebberd v. Bain v. Morso, Baker v. Taylor, Ball, Kk parte, " V. Miirry, " Root V. Bal. & Siis. R. R., Stimpson Jiainkor, Parker v. Banks, (iould v. Barber, Mowry v. Barbour, "Woodworth V. Barclay, Mitchell v. Barnard, Gibson v. " V. " " Parsons v. Barnum, Hopkins v. " Wilson V. Barrett v. Ilall, 'il " Morris v MS. (App. Cas.), 7 How., 798, 2 Opin,, 109, 18 '' r :" 'ii ■^ TABLE OF CASES, A. ai ; KOI Nil. in AM'iUnBTIOAI. ORIlKIt, WITH HirKRKNCKS TO PAOKH WIIKHR FOUND. 82, 301,488,191, 009, m, U4U. 12, 374, 410, 684, CSS. ins. 364. S12, 022, G65. ;r,n. r)Hi, 371. QGS. !G2. ir.l, 406. l.^.O, '.iaB, 290, 418, 453, U74. 291, 442. 11, 270, Cn, 044. ;02, OfiC. 59,335, 417, 510.591 28, 009. 25. i ;f Darrutt, HtoiirncH v. »t " Biirry v. Clirliu«l>, i^urntitw, Kx piirlc, " r. Hwiin, UiirlhuloiiKJW u. HuvryoT, Partklto V. Crittimdon, " V. " ]!:.lt(l, ToinlinHon v. DiiUiii I'. Clayloii, Ih'iliiiT V. " V. Silliiiian, " V. TuKKort, Bonch V. WliPilor, Iloan, S<«i'loy i'. " ('. .Siiiallwood, Itodford V. Himt, Beoch V. Tucker, Ik'culicr, Wilbur v. liuiTH, lilaiichard v. Bell V. Dunii'Ks, Boll, Davis v. " V. Hill, " V. Lrx'ko, " V. Mc'OuUough, " V. I'hillips, BoUas V. Hays, Hoiiiin, Aikon, v. Bonnott v. Martin, Ber^ V. Thistle, Borjrer, Samuel v. Berry, i']x parte, liettrt, {ril)son I', lioverly Hub. Co. v. Wing, Ijlcknoll, Brooks v. " V. Todd, RiRlcr, Parker v. BiiliiiKs, Marsh v. Binns v. Woodruff, liird, Harmon v. Birt, Loudon v. Bishop, Arnold v. " Goodyear v. Bladen, Treadwell v. " Watson V. Blake v. Sperry, Blakinton, Douglass v. Blanchard's Case, 7, 278, 310, .319, 353, 2, 470, 502, 507, DOS, V. Beers, V. Eldridgo, V. Haynes, V. Sprague, 1 \Uwin, 15.1, 1 Pick., n;i, 12 Law Ucp., :iG7, MS. (Apj). Cu«,), II II MS., 4 McIiOnn, 300, 6 " 32, M.S., 2 Whar. Dig., 409, 27 I'cnn., 517, 3 Wall, Jr., 2 " 101, 17 How., 74, MaM., 1810. " lN2:i. N. Y., IHIK, 1). (!., IHC.O, " iMdo, N. Y., \HM, Ohio, iHtV, " 1H19. N.Y., lHr.7. I'a., 1818 " l.-t.'i"!. " IHrtl. " 1H31, Sup. Ct., 1854, 24 Ponn., 212. M.S. (App. Ca.s), 2 Story, 108, 1 Mason, 302, M.S. (Ai)]). CaH.), 2 Blatclil'., 132, 2 " 411, MS., 8 N. Ilnmp., 500, MS. (App. Cas.), 8 Paine, 7ii, MS., MS., 5 Sorp. .t R., 427, 3 Wood. fi. Min,, 348, Mo., 4(i0, MS. (App. Cas.), 24 Uarb. S. C, 1C3, MS. (App. Cas.), 1 Blatdif., 103, MS. (App. Cas.), 3 McLean, 250, 3 " 432, 4 " 04, 4 " 70, 6 " 230, MS., 7 CiKsh., 322, 4 Wash., 48, 22 Wend., 113, 4 Ind., 500, MS. (App. Cas.), 4 Blatohf, 4 Wash., 703, 4 " 680, 2 N. Y. L. Oba., 251, MS. (App. Cas.), 5 Opin., 722, ( Opin., Gilpin's Ed., ) "I p. 1125, \ 2 Blatchf, 411, 1 Wall, Jr., 337, 6 W. L. Jour., 82, ( 3 Suinn., 535 ; 2 ) 1 Story, 104, J Pa., 18, ".6, 1). C, 1801. Mas.s., 1813. Mass., 1817, D. C, IHOO, N. Y., IS.-iO, Ct., 1852. Ohio, 1808, N. TL, 1837. D. C, \HM, N. Y., 1840, Ohio, 1858, " 185S, Pa., 1819, MaH.H., 1817. Mo., 1840. I). C, 1800, N. Y., 1850. D. C, 1800, N. Y., 1840. I). C, 1800, Ohio, 1843. " 1844. " 1845. " 1845. " 1851, " 1857, Mas.s., 1851. Pa., 1821, N. Y., 1839. Ind., 1853. D. 0., 1841. N. Y., 1800. Pa., 1827. " 1826. Ct., 1843, D. C, 1859. 1820, 1837, Ct., 1852, Pa., 1849, N. n., 1848, Mass., 1839, j 620. 441,011. 2:iH, 307, 510. 300, 427, 450, 457, 610, 619, 573, 002, 009, 0511. 01, 104, 221, 202, 457, 470, 6 15. 91, lOJ, 213, 221, 467,458, 470, 009, U15. 183, 248. 388. 90,018. !'"'., 97, 192, 245, 31. », 321, 327, 439,450, 5J0, 015, 018, 019, 022. 025. 107. 432, 471, 4SS, 502, Oil. 150, 242, 342, 430, 445, 440, 625, 595, 053, 082. 130, I IS, 307, 073. 90, 190, 239, 240, 300, 311, 304, 507, 51.3, 510, 007. 317. 494. 115, 104, 109, 239, 404. 240. 199. 698. 148, 629. 180, 256. 429, 451. 112, 160, 205, 402, 578 179, 210, 247, 040. 131, 471, 488, 537. 605. 328, 677, 092. 270, 302, 307, 437, 551. 112, 103, 402, 500, 001, 004. 198, 328. 198, 328, 510, 521, 551, 552, 592, 076, 077. i: II TAIU.K OI' CASKS, A. ,. + ''■I ^i IN AU*nABVnOAI. ORDBR, WITH RKrKllKNClCIt TO PAOKN WIIKRN ruVNO. BlanolKinl i'. Spriicuo, S Riinin . 270, r. Wliiini'V, 8 Hlalrlir, .107, Ulim. (Jun-Klk. Fuu. r'. JucnltM, 'J IlluUhl'., til), " V. \Vuriicr,l " aO«, liliinily, V,x jmrto, " J,i'() II. IHIhm ii, Ni'KiiH, IUihhI, Wcllinim V. lilo()im.T, llloKH V. " V. McQiufwnn, " V. Stollcy, " V. ViiiiKlit, DloHX r. IllodiiiLT, I}luiit, Allun V. " V. Piitton, BoariliiiDii, AtkiiiHon v. 14 It Bootli V. Onrelly, BonUn, Slfklcs v. BoHt. U<'lt. Co., ClinfToo v. " Day V. Ii II BoMt. Maiiuf't.'. f'o. r. Fisko, JIdst. A I'rov. II. Il.,Wiimn» v ]tnii;,'lil(pii, l'!x jiaftc, JJoiinic, (Idiiilyuar v, Uityd I'. Urnuii, " 1'. McAlpino, Boydon v. Diirko, Ura'ltiiril. r'uflmsh V. liniiiit. .Maiiiif'),' (Jo., Cnrvcr v. Jir.iiil, I'aikcr v. lircwiT, Cliiin V. II II Bnnvstor, Biirnimm v. Jirockway, Durst v. lirook, \V. L. Co. V. Mnsury, Jimokllokl, Ycarsloy v. Brooks V. Bicknoll, MH. (App. Gnu.), MS., 8 MuH^., to, MM. (.\i>p. Ca.H.) 2:1 Marl.. H. C., C.Ot, 11 How., f.:i9, MaHK., 1H3H, N. v., |Nr>5, " 1H17, Ct., 1840, h. C, 1858, Ohio, IMdO. MasH., INI I, D. 0., IH.-.O. N. Y , IH.17. Hiip.Ct., 1852, 5 Mcrx>mi, 15H, Olilo, 1860, Cltod 1 nialclif., r.'JO, ]j\., 1850, 2:1 Karh. S. ('., tun, S. Y., ls.17, 3 Slorv, I I'J, MiiHS., IHI.-.. 2 \Vo(mI. it .Mill., IJl, " 181(1. 1 llliitchr.. .ISO, N. Y., 1840. 2 I'liiiir, Wi, " 1828, MS. (App. CuH.), D C, 1847. MS., N. Y., I.'^r.l. 1 niuU'lif., 217, " 1H17, 3 lllrtlclif., 035, N. Y., 1850. MS., " 1857 22 How,, 217, Siip.Ct., 1859. Mo. L. Ili'p., :iOO, MasH., 1853. " " 1851. 552, 077. f>"!». lit, 403, 581. H).., litH, 210, 220, 275,333,328 420, 437, 4.'.tl, 470, 622, 601 602, OtM, 070, 078. 254, 400. 100. no, 158, 104, 10!), 220, 220, 32: 320, 320, 57H, fl.lM, 077. 108, 324, 328,611, 678, C2.t, 070 070. 080. 000. 01, 170, 208, 377, 638. 04, 97. 2.17, 301, 38.1,450, 5.11 581, 072. 2 Ma.Mon, 110, 2 SK.rv, 412, MR. (.\pp. ''as.), 3 Itlntclir,. 2il 15 How.. 212. 3 lil.Jtchf., -JiU, 1844, 117, 15!>, 180, 191,250,207, 310, ;!20, 321, 320, 3.-)4 305, 3H:1, 390, 309, 420, 455, 477, 557, 507, 03;), 007. li;:i, 188, 207, 248, 250, 282, 303, 310, 310, 320, 327, 455, 471, 510, 51-1, 517. 527, 557, 033, 04.S, OOi " 184.5, " LSI,-., Mass., 1840, " 1813, N. Y., 1801. Mn.ss., 1851, Sup. (;t.. 1853, N. Y., 1S5C. 117, 201, 354, 520, 081. 320. 188 270 102, 105, 217, 400, 401, CCl 322. 320, 332, ?H'i, 491, 55,S. 300, 47.3, 522, 559, 593. 189, 340, 523, 500, 024. Drooka, v. Htul Brown, Iloyil " i>«voll II II II II V. Diii'l V. ' V. ' V. Shan »'. ^Vri^ Brown ItroH., 1 it Co. V. Itniiiilaj^c ,t W Brunswick v. II llrilllliill, I'lilln Hryaii, .Mr(;jivv Hryi'o v. Diirr, Uiiok V. Colli) ,t " v. (lill, " v. Ut.riiiiii " V. " Bull r. I'rutt, .'liiilanl, llyarn r Bunlcii /'. "Coriiii " (/'oriiiiij^ Biirkp, HoydiMi ; lliirlt'w ('. O'Nii'l Biiriihaiii v. Urov " Dii-tz ,'. Burr V. (;owi)onl " V. (Jrcifory, " McCayr. Biirnott /'. "I'halo " V. " " V, " lliirrall v. Jcwott, IliirrowM /'. Wcth iJiisH r. I 'lit 111 y, Byam, Jtrook.s v. " Brooks V. " V. It.iliard, " )'. Ividy, " V. Farr, Bynati V. Sullivan, Cndy, Sti'phons v. " StC'VCIKS V. Cahoon v. King, Caldwell, Stoplion Calvert, Xesmith Carajiliell, Dohson V ance Cansler r. Katon, Card, Uoi]fro v. Carey v. Collier, Carlan, Stono v. Carpenter, Taylor • Cnrr v. Rice, '■• 'I C.rrnll v. Gambril, 3 *■•*»*•..„ TAIJLK OV CASES, A. 9n 1 IN AI.I-IUIIRTIUAI. OIWKK, WITH i(Kn:ttKNl'IM TO I'AOrH WIIKRN rol'NU. 1 Brookt, ». Btoll^, 3 UcIa'iui. 5.'3, Uhio, 1845, 121. 2.M, 204, 280, 030. I0ft,4ei,400, ■ Urown, Iloyil v, a " 205. " IH43. ■ " I'llViill V. 1 W.hhI, .1 Mm., :< . Mum., in 15. ■ II II :i W. L. .Iimr, 151, " 1845. ■ " V. Dui'licmio, •J Curt,, !)7, " 18.54, 501. ■ II tj_ 11 •i " 371, " 185.5, 372, 500. ■ II |)_ M ll> Mow., |H3, Snp.Cl., IH5II, 372, 5011, 04H. ■ " V, SImnnon, 'Hi lliiw., 53, 1857, 133, 223, 227, C30. ■ " V. Wii^flit, 17 Ark., ti, Ark,, J85fl, 201. llrinvn llnm., I'lielim, DoiljfO 18 I[.)\v. IT., 7. N. Y., I8S9. A I'll. 1'. ! Iliiiiiiliufi' .V, WiMiil, Kx piirto. Wlicftt, 1103, Sup.Ci., 1824 228. 604. llriiniwii'k t', llol/iilb, MS., Ohio, 1858, 345. llriiiiiiiii, Coll'i-i'ii V. .» M.r,enM, 51(1, hid.. INI!). Hrynii, .M''(iii\v c. 1 r. S. 1.. .lour., H'i, N, Y., IN22. Itryi'o r. Dorr, :i MeLeim, 58'i, Mieh,, INI5, 114, 119, 232, 305. Itiiiik r. C'llil) 4 llcriimnco, !l \.:i\\ Kep.. 515, N, v., \^l», 114, 119, 208, 3n;|, 301. " V. dill, 1 M<'l.l, 0!)3. " V. " 1 " ;i'.l8. 1849, 1n:«, 234, 33.-., 018, OUU. Hull V. I'riitt, 1 Conn., :i4.'. Cl„ 181,5. 338, .194. .Miilliird, llviim v. 1 Curl., UKI, MiiMi^., IN52. Uurili'ii ('. Coriiliig, M.^., N. Y., 1850, 309, 3tiC, 481, 501. (!oriiiiiK i;. 15 How., 252, Bnp.Ct., 1853 Fliirkp, lliiyili'ii r. 14 " 575, 1852 HiirK'W 1'. O'Nii'l, MS. (.\pp. Can.), I). C., 1853, 130, 102, 340, 400. Diiriiimm ': Hruwstor, 1 Venn., h7. Vt., I82N, 200. Dk'U J'. MS. (A pp. CaH.), 1). (!., 1859. Unrr i'. Ciiwiiortliwnitc, 4 niateiif., Ct., I(!58. 201, 373, 547. •' i<. ( iro^,'(pry, 2 I'aiiie, 420, N. v.. 1828, 223, 203, 207, C30. " McCiiyc* (! I'.'nii., 117, I'a., 1847. Uiinn'tt ('. I'Imlon, 12 .M... L. Uep.. 220 N. v., 1859, 370, 080. " V. " I'J How. I'r., 5:!0, " IHCO, 300. " V. " 21 " " -1(10, " |H(i|, 370. I^iirrall c. Ji'wolt, 2 Taikre, 1.14, N. Y., 1830, 200, 223, 250, 632, 053, 050, iltirnnvH i'. WothcroU, MS. (A]ip. Can.), I). (!., 1H54, 427. llUMH 1'. I'litiii'y, 1 1 Mo. L. Hep., (;h7 N. II., 1858, 20.5, 404, 580. Byaiii, Jlrooks v. 1 Slorv. ;i()0, Mass,, 1813. " Urooks V. 2 St.'-'-, 525, 553, " IS43. " V. llullard, 1 Curt., 1(10, " 1852, 107, 372. " V. VAdy, 2 niatehf., 521, Vt.. 1853, 1!I7, 408, 555. " V. Farr, I Curt., 2(i(), Mass., 1852, 181), 190, 275, 051. RyasH I'. Sullivan, 21 How. IT., 50, N. Y,, 1800, too. , Cmly, Stephens i'. C 14 llow., 628, • Sup. Ct., 1852 4 " Stevens V. 2 Curt., 200, R. I., 1854. 0, Cahoou V. lliufj, MS., Mo., 1859, 27S, 283, 300, 337, 451, 510, 608, 602 304, 42S, 41( Cnlihvell, Stephens v. MS., Mas.s., 1800. Calvert, Nesmitli v. 1 Wood, fc Min., Xi , " 1845. 1, Caraiiliell, Pobsonu. 1 Suinn., 31!), Me., 1833. 7, •' Vance v. MS., Ohio, IS 59. ("ansler v. I'laton, 2 Jones Eii., 490, N. C., 1S50, 205, 095. Card, Dodiro v. MS., Ohio, l.HCO. Carey v. ('oilier, 66 Niles' Rep., 202 N. Y., 1839, 210, 041. Carlan, Slono v. 3 Mo. L. Rep., :iC(), Mass., 1855. Carpenter, Taylor v. 11 raipe, 29;i, N. Y., 1844. 11 u 3 Storv, 458, Mass., 1844. II II 2 "Wood, k Min., 1, " 184G. II l> 2 Sand. Ch., G03, N. Y., 184G. Cnrr v. Rico, MS., " 1856, 4.34, 449, 625, 035 i: i 4 Blatehf., " 1858, 201, 632. C-rroll V. Gambril, o O MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1853, 281. ■vhii Kr WmI^. SH?**'^' ^""wT^ m% '^W«rv;* ''^^^^^^ *w«4L iTm Mpf^iy^^nL '^^mi Ww^y'^~ ^m in '^i$^m\ ■WW'" 84 TAIU.K OF CASKS, A. IN ALriiANKTicAi, oniiKii, wifii lit rrnrx »:M to rAOM wmkiin rorVD. '*.. :*<* !! 'H''+l! "■«! Ctirter » Cnrtrr, " H»rK(>iutt V. Canror v. Ilral:.t. M(|(. Co., " I'. Hv.lo, CnriiMl, Hcoit V, MH. Mpp '*(*•.), T). 0, mSA, 139, SIO, 41t. II Mo. I,. I(<'|i,, tin I, Mum., iMftN, ) I'M ) l:io. 3 Htory, 4:i'J, > in ivr, Bi.i, K l,aw It* p., 410, MS.. I .\. Mump.. 317, 4 M('r.i>iin, 5'.>il, 2'i Mow., '.'IT, .1 lll:ii< h., 'Ji:8, :'o Hi.w., -jOH, • 'ury, hiiy i', t!iM"i> I'. Mori 'J', " I' |{.m|ii;.|.i, Clminn I'. lluHl.,11 Ilfit Co., " (liMMiyi'iir r. " t'. Iliivwiird. " v.S. l';.<'iirHprlii«('o., \\f<., Cliniiilirrliii r. Iliiiimiii, 'i llltkri-lir., '110, i'liniiibiTH, Kx p(irt«>, MH. (A pp. Cum.), " Applttoiiii. " " " I'lMlllX V. 2 \Vllr.|l., I'i.".. rimiiip. Truim. (!i).,Shoriimriv. :il Vorm., lU'i, Clmu.llcr r. I.nilil. MS. (,\pp. (!iih.), ('Imillilcl .V liiit.'lii'r, Kx pnrto, " Clirixiy V. Miirpliy, C'lui'k V. Clurk, " V. " (lri'oiioii(rli i». Clftypool, Iliiiisr^kiu'C'htt'. Clayton, lliittin v, " I'. Htono, i'lirliii;fli, Hurry v, Cluiii I. liri'WLT, Coato^ »'. {[ollirook, Colib .t llcriiianci-, Uuck v. i.iiw lli'|i.. r>l'», " \V(j<»litill'i'. MS. (App. Cum.) Cochruiif V. Walormon, " " Cofl't'cn r. Uninton, Cole, Kx parto, I'lplcTiinn V. Licsor, Collier, Carry v. ColliiiH, .lolliiro V. SorroU v. " V. White, Colt r. YouD);, •' Yoiiiif^ ('. Cornstock v. Moore, " riiclpn V. Cotnbstoc'k, I'liillips »;. Com. Ini'. Co. v Sfiinett, (U*o, INOO. Mum , IM:!, IN3, ».rt, l.'ill. 473, 010, ftl'.i, Xn, III.'), fliH, C'ii. Slip. Ct., IN 13, 1H7, 3ai>, bM. M. N. v., Ih.V). N, II.. 1H|M, 1(17, 100. IimI. I Nil), inn, Tii, ARf*. Sup. CI., i^.-io, i7u, :rj7, :i7o, dho, 03S N. v., IH.M. Siip.Ct, 18,17, 110, 111, 221. N. v., IH.VI. " I Mr. I, r.iiT. 1>. C, IH.'.O, 137. " 1800. I'll., IM07, Vi.. inr.s. 1».C., IH.-.7, 427, 4:M. •' IH.Mi, :i;i7. N. Y., IHftO, 412, 0iS5, CflO. " |H,^7, 370,414, (JOO. " iMm. P, C, IH.-.M. Sup. Cf,, IHOl. 2 Wliiir. {"Ik!, 400, I'a., Im|H. 2 I'aiii.', :iH2, N. v., IH2«, 170, 208, 200, 404, 038. 12 Law Il.'p.. .'Ii;7, " I.HHI. II M... I,. Itci)., a'JO, MiiHM., iwriil, 127, 200. " 1B55, 101, UI2. .121, 32B, 327, 385, 303 400, .(oc, .i,-,i, .i(i:i. N. Y., ISl,', 100, no. 120,374, 410. I Mil!. D. C, iHilO. " LSI I, 138,177,275,201,20.1,305,420, Iii-l., 181!), 1211, 170, 210, 27.3, 376,411,410, 4M|, r.OO, 03!), 084. n. C, 1857, 434. Ohio, 1851), 210, 210, 281, 311, 345, 357, 370. 4115, 5 Hi, 002, COO. 5(f NIIoh' Rcjj;., 202, N. Y., IS.'tO. 21 .Mo., 3;t8, Mo., 18,'i,-.. 4 lilutfhf., N. Y., I h:,7. " " I85H. P. C, l.sfiO, 178, 200, 021. N. Y., IM.VJ, 102, 321, 302,676. " lH,-.2. " 1800, 414,482. Irid., 1818. 12 How, I'r, 77, 25 Uurh. S. (!., 75, 25 " 75, MS. (App. Cum), 1 HlacU, 4:11, 2 Curt., 500, 2 .^.iikI. C'i., 5H0, 4 McLcnn, 5 1 0, MS. (App. Can.), MS., MS. (App, Cms.), 2 Blatphl'., 471, 2 " ;t7:t, 18 now. rr.. 421, 4 Mi'f.t'an, .'i.^.'l, 4 " SJ.'i, " \H\0. m roiin., 206, Ta., 1800, Cloth Co., [^■^•' 1857, MS. (App. Gas.), D. C, 1842. M.'^.. Mass., 1800. 10 Law Rop., CGI, " 18.''.7. 3 W. & Serf?., 200, Pa., 1842. 2 lilatrhf., 144, N. Y., 1850. 2 Platc'hf., 151, " 1850. 4 B. Moil., 504, Ky., 1814, 4 Wash., 25!», Pa., 1821. 8 Liiw Rt'p., 413, Pa., 1342, 680. 380, 515. Coimi.soii, Pomcroy v. Cook, Kaiiu'.s V. " I'"orl)ush V. " Geiger V. " OilASon V. " Woo( 1 worth ». Cooper V. Giinn, " Isaacs V. " V. Matthews, 170, 174, 31.3. 271, 282, 381, 332. 389, 300, 40l, 480. Coxn, Kwpi I'liiwli-y, \\ • Vi'horo V, CrcMMlor V, { Cn'ttcnilun, t> Crookor, V.x CroH^ r. Hii, ''lllviT ('. \V Ciimli'll If. l\ Ciiiitiiii;f|iatri Clinic, II„|,|, " Wooij J ClII'liMI, Wl CiiNlnnaii, S W CiHicr, Crcs Cutter, l{oi.,| " Whiu Cutlitl;^ V. Mo nalioil's Cnso. I'aio V. Smil! f^ul.v, Corwiii Pan forth, Wii Paniels, Hoi] y '•arxt V. Urock "avid.son, (,Vri f'avid.soti V. n.ivi.N, Kirior.-<( I'.ivi.i, Kx i)arti " )'. n,.ii, " V. Kciul. " V. McCo, " V. I'lihuv SteariiPs ^•ivoll r. Brown Paw.son V. FoIIr I^'i.v r. Uo.st. Pol «y»n TAULE OP CASKS, A. 8ft IN ALflUMriOAL OMtiKIl, WITH RirMMMt^KII TO PAliKII WIIRRM niVMD. l?Oi»p«»r, 8l.in\ 1 1 I'll , aiJ, ('it|H<, Jinl'oii I' MM,, Curtiiii A M>trtU'it, Kx parto, MS. (App. Cna.X •* I'lirkur V, 4 Mi-U>iiii, 4il'J, Conu'll, ll.iv V. I lllafrlir., ftlMj, " V. HyaU, MM. (App. C.i«.), '• I'nrry i'. " " " Coriiliitf, lliinlcn v. M.H,, •• V. " . la How., 36'j, " Troy Iron k Nail Fno. v. Torwln «. D»Ijr, Oowportliwikitu, Burr v. V. Uill, Coxf, Kwi'r I'. • 'riivvlcy, Walton i'. ('ri'lioro V, Norton, iVcuMlor f. t'lMtiT, (7rltti II a N. llamp., 01, 2 Wood. .V Mill., r.'21, 1 Itlat.'lil'.. :t2'.), 2 W. [,. Jour., 511, MS. (App. Cnx.), 1 Storv, 590, 1 (lull., 4'.'», 478, 4 WoHli., 2'iO, Sup.01., I US. Ohio, IHIIO. 1>. ('., IM57, IDS, 436. tllllo, |N|H. N. v., IH»!). I». C„ IH.VI, 307. " IH47, N. v., IH.W, Sup, (X, 1H33, 15.1, 315, 35.1, 3*10, 30(1, 30!), 317, 3.M,472, 484,512, 514, 5CI, lUiO, C., lM5:i, 2D7. Ohio, IH47. " |H.J;t, T>. C, iH.'iO, N. v.. 1m:i.\ Ct., 1H.1H, I). C., IH47, " 1 M.-.5. N. II., IHIJ), MaM., 1H17. " |H5t». Lft.. IS I.-.. D. (!., IM5H, " 1H5H, " lH5:i. Mum., Ihii. " IKUt. I'a., 1818, 143, 143, 400, C:0. 201, 527. 121, :t30, 137, 3U0. 43,y 600, OlS. 680, 680. D. 1 Opin., 032, 12 Ahli. I'r. 2.17, ( r|itoii'H Troilo- / Mks., 187, M.S., 11 Ohio, 402. MS. (App. Ca«.), II II 11 3 Rtorv, 70S, MS. (.Vpp. Cas.), H X. I lamp., 500, 2 U, T., riC.G. 2 Brock., 298, 1822, 212, 630. N. Y., 1.S01, 117, 417, C87. I " ISOO. IHOO. Oliio, is.'.a. " 1H42, D. C, lH.-,7. " l.S.-)S. Mass., 18 15. r>, C, 1.S59, N. II., \HM, n. I., 185.3, Vft., 1827. 202, C94. 450. 035. 201. 375, 410, 481, 68J, C.>f9. 334, .130, S.VI, 305, 455, 617, 510, 620, 000, 051. MS. (App. Cm.), T). C, 1859, 1 Wood, .t .Mui., 53, Mass., 1845, 308, 432, 401, 510, 517, 638, 634, 048. 3 W. L. Jour., 151, " " 182. 2 Wasli., .'ill, Vft. 1P08, 5!)r). Mo. L. Rep., 330, Miixs., 1853. 385, 400. M.S., N. Y., IS.-j-t, 299. " " 18.-.9, 127, 1C4, 510. ■C! WMW -^ V R # TAULK OK CASKS, A. ix AirNAMrnou ommm, witn nan 'twit to rAsn wbim ronm iMr, OfXMl/wr r, 1 nil.', i.r, mii, N. Y. \»M, ){ .. -, M.S., V.J., iNAi. " " ». M " jiaa. " " Vi 5 Wttll Jr., 3«a, •• iptfta. " V, WM. N. v., iHftH. tl l, 11 M N. J., IHSO, 103, 3(1 A, 54*, 617. ■■A i'ong. Hub. Co., Ooott- y«ur 1. Ii.iv 1. llurl»liorn, 3 iltiiUlit', U9, N. v., iHr.ii. MR, 11 I , IH5:i, lOT. •• V, " M " lUfVI, I3rt. 413. 6R0 •' 1'. " N " |H.1ft, 3:12, 3U 1, 408 " llwrl^li'irn i'. lOTIow., at!. Hup. (It, INAII " I'. Kiiywiinl, W " 30H, IH.'.T " JihImiii I'. MK, N. Y.. iMi-H. " 1'. I.yorm, •' V, N. K. <'iir-S|>rlri((ro., • t I.II., IHIIO, nto. 3 nirtHif,, IH 170 , N, Y.. IHH 317, 401 " V. Niwiirk I. il. Co., 1 Hliii.hf,, tl'jH, " IN.-.O, loi', no, 133, 171, 310 336. •• i: Hiiltnmn, MH, M.I.. 1 »:.!», 137, 3IH, 54U. " Hiivilitm 1'. •1 lllat.'lif,, W, N. Y., ixirt. " I', (riiiiin Rub. Co., •I Hiiii.'iii:. 4HM, •• 1 H.Ml, 325, 480, 648, 670, 048 60A. II y^ 11 II II 'JO How,, 'J in, Hup. Ct., lN,'i7 5111. ItiMin '. MiiMon, W " ll»H, IM.-.7 , 134, 230, 208, 273. Idxlcilik, y.x |>nrto. M.S. (,\pp. Cum.), I). (;., IHflO. 153, ]>iy>'iiir, llalii'iH'k V. »t II tl " IHftll. Ik-fri'iioi, [.iiiiKilou V, 1 I'aliio. 20.1, N. Y.. IH23. l)uliiiii> i; 8(?i)lt, (iilpili, 4H',), I'll., 1M34, 11:1, 119, 334, 3111, 207, U53, 328, 654. 243, 39 1, 200, V"u\* V. b' (Moro, I Miirlin, 207. Ln., IHll, 457. l)i'titiujml, Winniii t'., 1.. How., :i;io, Sup. Ct.. 1H53 Ift-rlfy, I'liltc II. r> .Mi'Irf'aii, :i2H, oiilo, Ih:.2. • " ' Klory i: 4 '• l"!0, " IH4(1. Drrrlriirt'P, i'citilKme i*. 4 WiiHli, 2ir., I'u., IHIH. Dt'ltllolil'H ClIHI', 4 opiii.. ;i:in, l.sit. 505, (171. '\ llvVWA, 4 .\iii«r. I„ J., 1H8, r«., iHr.i, 253, BOO. I)i>viil, 'r,\ lir i>. 1 ('o.l.. Ki'p., 30, I,n.. 1H4S. I)i'\v( v, Alili'ii 1'. 1 siorv. :i;iii. Miinn., IH4fl. Iff Wilt )'. llrodkn, M.S., N. v., IHiii, 174, 049. 1»(; Yiiiin^f, KcpliiiKor r, Ill Wh.'nt,, ^M, Siip.rt., iH'.'S. Ililllo^tlC, I'olllllM'k t', 4 Wiisii , &;(«, I'll., IH-Jfi. " " V. 2 r.'t.. 1. .Sup. Ct., IH29 T>i('kiiiHiiii r. Hull, II I'i.k.. 217, Mush., 1S33, 200, 431. Itii'tz, l'!x imrtf, M.S. (.\pp. CaH,), I>. (!., iNliO, 020. " t'. Hiiriili;itn, It II " lH,-.9, 429, 451. Klxou, Kx piirto. II II " 1«(10, 155, ■123. " V. Moyor, 4 WuHh., Grt, Pa., 1821, 303, :tio. 333, 338, 343, 353, 602, 590, i;3l. ])(i))son V, Catiipljcll, 1 .'^iiiim., .110, Ml'., IH3.3, 590. l>'Ml(fi) t'. Oiiril, MS., Ohio, IHliO, 190, 387. Dorr, Ilryco t'. :i MrLi'an, 582, Mich., 1815. I>(MiKli"rty e. Vim Kon^rnnd, 1 Hoir. ("h., liH, N. v., IH39, 348. l)c)iiH'laKM ('. niakiiitdti, MM. (.\pp. Can.), 1). (\, 1859, 143. J)()Wiiiiij.', Sitiilii )'. M.S., Manx., 1850. l)rak(' ('. ('iiniiiiijflimn, M.S. (A pp. Ctts.), I). ('., IH.-..''>, 138. L>ucii('«no, Brown v. 2 Curt., 97, MaHH., 1854. " " V. 2 " 371, " 1855. " " V. 19 How., 183, Sup. Ct., 1850. Diulloy »'. Mayhow, 3 Cotnx., 9, N. v., 18-19, 109, 208, 225, 220, 380, 600. Dunbar, (iodclycar v. 3 Wall., .Ir., N. .1., lHi;i. " 1'. Marilen, 13 xN. Hamp., 311, N. II., 1812, 202, 432. Diinklcc, Hill V. M.S. (Apj). (Jns.), I). (!., lS.->7. I';i|)liil'rt ('tiHi\ 1 Opin., 332, 1820, 128, 656. I'litciior, Loveridge v. M.S. (A pp. C«H.), I). C, 18C1, Dyer v. Ricli, 1 Mc'to., 180, Mass., 1810, 490. l)y8on, l']x parto, MS. (A pp. Can.), 1). C, 1860, 020, 021, 628, 000, CG3, 674. " t'. Gunibrill, II II 18G1, 141, 022. Dwiglit V. Applcton, 1 N. Y. L. Obs., 105, N. y., 1843, 213, 683, 639, G43, 044. M 11 1'. If.. V. II II V. Jor V. ' II II V. Kr. V. Wi. Kvcrnon * 1{ Kwcr V. Coxi Kyro V. Iligb PalliHK. CJril! Furisli & Kee TAIU.K OK CASKS, A. a? W AU«A»at|l'AI. OHOIIN, WITH HNrSIIHSllUM tu I'«'.»fi M «••■ fWmtk ■^v.. I ' <» Oct., rt«raon ». I H 'iHik, •' I'. Kli'liiinl*, lUrlo, JiHlkirm v. " «', I'tiK", " V. M«wjrt»r, " Thfl WmH. Mm. Co., v. laUNi, Otinatar v, ** KVMM «. " " ». Kildy, Urnmi'. hMiiiiiiKU I'. Ill|rlnrlM)ii, " I', KliiHT f. I'l'tiru'l, KllHwnrth, I'ri'iiil'iN v, Kly, Hmilh i'. " " t', KinvrMon t*. Dnvieii, " " *! Krni>rv, II x niirto, KmiiU'lt, Wiiltiicy v, Kvitnrt' (/'iiMc, " V. c;iiitiiibvr8, " V. Kittuti, V. II " 1'. Ilottick, " V. " " V. Jordan, " V. " " V. Kromor, " v. VVlMHS, liviTRon .V Rieard, Ex porto, luviT V. Coxi', \']yto V, Uigb«o, FiilliH 1'. Grimth, I''iirish k Keoler's Cnse, 3 dlorjr, 41% MM. Mm!'(A|>p, Cm.\ 1 Urwiil., tf, « N. liiimp., 477, 4 Mmoii, I, ;i Willi , .If., 'J JiiiiKM Ki|., -lOM, I'l 1. 1;, aii, 7»1, ir> iiiiw., i:i7, :« Stnrv, 7llM, 3 Ulutirlir., 1, R. I., 1M4. MM*,, IMO^ U. II, I NAP, M«N«„ IMIIO. N. II, M.'ll, Mum., IH'JA, I'll.. I HI) I, N. c, inae. IV, I Mill. Hup, l!l .IMtt. I'll., IHIH. Hti|i, I't., IH21 VI., IH.VI. III., IHftl, '■ IH6I, MitMH., IHIH. Ohio, I Hilt, MiiMM, IH47. I'll., IH'JII. " IHI'J. I), i;., IH.10. " IM.'iH, N, v., IHfiO, Mi»., inrL-i, I'll., I. SHI. Ohio, iHin. Hiip. Ct., IHVI. MllHH., IH»,'i, N. Y., 1 8 IS, in. 4»A, 441, 413. 140, 3HU. aUM, 4IU, 437, 431. 301. 10ft, 170, IM, 3.11. 343, 3110, aSO, 4.11, 0«lt, ft03, Oft I, )iu;i. 6 now., 437, 11 " 6H7, MS. (.\|.|.. CiiK.), Iialcl., :iii:i. 7 oiiiii., i:i:i, 'i Wash.. ir>, Tot. 0. C, -iTi, 8up.0t, IH17. " IH50. n. (;.. iH,-,i), I'a., ih:ii. iHftft, I'll., IH07, " IHKJ, 3"Whoot., 461, Sup.Ct., .'818, 3 Wnnh., 44.1, 7 Whout., 350, 3 WiiMli., -108, 7 Whout., 4.'')3, 1 Ilrock., UIH, 9 Cm., 111!), Pot. ('. (;., 2 1 ft, 2 Wash., ;il2, M.^. (.Vpii. Cas.), •I Wanli., 187, I'll., IHIH, Sup.Ct., 1822, Ph., 1818, Sup.rt., 1822, Va., IHI.1, Sup.Ct., ISl.'), I'll., IHIG, " IHOii, I). C, lH-)5, Ph., 1H2I, 22 How. Pr., 205, N. Y., 1801, P. "Wripht, .10.1, 7 Opin., .100, Ohio, 1833, 1865, .' ' ' 304, 340. 131, 301. 08,140, 118, 4(10,008, 030,073. l\\r>, I2H, lioi. 204, 2211, 220. 101, 1. SO, 210, 3ftt>,n77, cm. ■ l:il, 175,207, 2.".7, 2114, :iO|, lUlft, 402, ft02, OOI, r.n, 527, 033, 052. 008, 008. 440, Oil. r.2 I. 60 1, 625, 040. 02, 10.-., 151, 181, IHO, 197, 241, 2iH, 2!iO, 21IH, a02, :i2s, :t:i3, 341, 312, ai'.l, :i5ft, 4:10, ttlO, 604, 608, 62.5, .'.!»!, 6'.)5, 03H, 07H. lO.-i, I'.I.S, 302, 32H, :!i;i, 31*!, 347, 310, 130, 470, 601, 600, 600,063, 070, 070. 2.S7, 353, 520, C31, 079. 130, 175, 286, 200, 350, 353, 520, 032, 079. 130,231,286,287, 290, 290, 299, 303, 301, 341, 353, 430, 600, 050, C7H. 280, 290, 299, 341, 313, 079. 113, 327, 141, 408, 053, HOC. 07H. 312. 301, 305, 444,498,078. 181, 254, 422. 212, 377, 030,010. 02, 469. 201. 153. '•*^ " .Vw.s%""" 8;=; '7^'ii,, teN! '^Wwtarw-' li L 1 W>^w»,w- Vw^^ TABLK OF CASES, A. I.V AI.I'IIAUETICAI, OUDKIl, WITH KI'.FKKKNCKS TO I'AilliS WIIKKE FOUND. Ct-4 Farley r. N. S. lingo Co., J''iirr, liyiun r. l"'illlill;rtii||, I'ufk ('. ]''cli, St('|ili('iis i\ Fi'iV'u.soii, I'arkur v. iVrrutt v. A twill, " Atwi.lr. Forry, l'aj,'o v. Fetritlgo t>. Mfrdiant, " V. Wells, Fisko, DoHt. Mfg. Co. V. " Lrooka v. " " I'. " ^f()Ol^y V. Flickeiit,'i'r, Smith V. Fo^.% McDoiigiil V. Fdlluii, Dawson v. Ful.som r. Marsli, Footo v, Silaby, V. II V. II V. II V. II bil shy Forbes, Walker v. ForbuHh v. Bradford, " V. Cook, Foss V. Richardson, Foster V. Mooro, Fowlo, Pierpont v. Fox, Treadwell v. Fraiicais, Hobbs v. French v. Rogers, Fry it Soeloy, Ex parte, Fultz, Ex parte. MS (App. Cas.), 1 Clin., •_'r,(), I) Wend., 44, 2 lilatclif., 37, 1 " 407, 1 " ir.i, 2 " a:), MS., 4 Abb. Pr., IT)!!, 13 How. I'r., ['M, •2 Mas., ll'.i, M.S., 15 How., 212, 2 Mas., 1 1 2, MS. (App. (,'a.s.), 2 liosw., :t>S7, 2 Wash., 311, 2 Storv, 10(1, 1 lilat hf, 445, 542, 545, 2U0, r. C, lS5t), Mass., 1H.-.2. N. Y., \b:\2. " ISIO. " IH4!». " 1810, " lH4(i. Mich., 1.S57. N. Y,, 1M.J7, " 1857, Mass, 1820. " 1851. Sup. Ct., 1853, Mass., 1820. D. (;., 1843. N.Y'., 1858. Pu., 1808. Mass., 1841, N. Y., 1849, " 1850, " 1850, " 1851, 428. 683, 591, C45. 413, G85, 000. 274, 413, 085, GOO. 3 Dlatchf., 507, " 1850. 14 How., 218, Sup. Ct., 1852. 20 How., 200,378, " 1857. M.S. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1801. 11 Mo. L. Rep., 471, Mass., 1850, 10 " 004, " 1857, 11 " 070, " 1850, 1 Curt., 279, " 1852, 2 Wood. A Min., 23, " 1840. M.S. (App. Ca.s.), D. C, 1859. 10 How. Pr., 507, N. Y., 1800. M3., Pa, 1851, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859, 1853, {)9, 103, 358, 458, C27, C43, C44. 184, 234, 248, 335, 344, 42.5, 480, 404, 40.5, 520, 570, 502, Oil, H t<. Johiii«(>n, (iiliMou V. liariiiinl, " V. " V. Belts, " v. Cook, " V. (iilTord, " V. Harris, " V. Uichurds, " V. Van Dre.Hsar, " I'. Woodworth, GilVoril, liibsou c. (Jill, Uuck V. " CowiHTthwaito v. Gillotl V. Kcttlo, UlaiUliiig, StovL'US V. II 11 Glou. Mfg. Co., Siekloa v. (Jixliiard r. Lyman, " Stt'ia u. (loiKhvin, llyaii v. Uumlyear v. liisliop, '• V. Bi)iiriio, " V. (Jlialloo, V. Day, " V. " II II MS.(.Vpp.Cas.), 1 Itlatflif., :t88, 7 How., UJO, 1 Blatclif., lO:?, " 14-t, /: 1 1 Pat 520, 107, No. :if(!, V. V. " Day V. Goodvcar v. Day & Cong. Rub. Co., Gooilyeur v. Dunbar, " V. McBurnoy, " " V. '' V. Matthews, " and N. 10. Car Spg. Co. V. I'hulps, " V. Railroads, " 'Warner v. Gorliam v. Mixtor, Gould, Backus v. " V. Banks, " Little V. " " V. " 'Waahburnt). Gotilding's Case, Goulard, Wolfo v. Grant, Kornodlo v. ' V. Mason, " V. Raymond, Gray v. James, II !,_ II " V. RussoU, Green, Hazard v. " Wright V. Greonough v. Clark, " Stnrtevnnt v. Greenwood, Ilotchkiss v. " V. Di^'., 1 llliilchf., .'):!•.', 8 raiife. 111'.', 1 UlMtvhr., 52!), 4 McLean, HI, M.S. (.\pp. Cas.), 3 Ducr, G2 I, 17 How., 117, 2 Cui-t., 008, M.S., 1 1 I'ick., 2(;8, 1 Mc.VUitt., 82, '.i Sunui., 514, 4 Blalclii:, 3 " 20(1, 3 " 208, 1 " 565, MS., 2 Wall, Jr., 28:!, MS., ■ 3 Dlatehf., 449,^ 3 Wall, Jr., 3 Blatchf., 32, 11 Cush., 509, 1 Paine, 300, • 3 Blatchf., 91, 2 Wall., Jr., 35G, D. 0,1 SCO, N. v., 1818, Sup. ct., I8;rt. N. Y., 1810, " 1850, " 1850, " 1840, " 1815, " 1850, " 1810, " 1850. Oliio, 1810. 1). C, 1859. N. y., 1854, Sup. Ct., 1854. U. 1., 185G. N. J., 1850. Ma.xH., 1833, Cal., 1850. Mass., 1839. N. Y., 1800, " 185.5, " 1855, " 1850, N. J., 1850, " 1852, " 1852, N. J., 1850. N. Y., 185G, N. J., 1801, N. Y., 1853, Mas.s., 1853. Ct., 1814, N. Y., 1853, N. J., 1853, 292, 298, 429, 451. 122. 400. 558. 158, 103, ICG, 244, 28.1, 321. 329, 384, 001, C07. 324, 329, 559, 070, 080. 327, 328, 383, 558, 014. 10(i, 107, 020. 3'Jl, 391!, 559. 22 1, 229, 204. 273, 31G, 411. ••C MS. (.Vpp. Oas.). D. C, 184G. 1 Am. L. Jour., 543, Mass.. 18-19, 201. 113, 115, 404. 208, 404. r',2G, 272, 380. 220, 23i), 339, 342, 408, 589. 314, 331, 400, 420, 443, 448. 95, 112, 151, 108, 245, 200, 272 280, 302,331,351, 303, 437, 143 514, GOO, 014, 019, 024, 028, 073 405, 4C8. 102, 381, 388, 398. 112, 245, 403. 355, 525. 114, 119, 216, 385. 191, 190, 303,307,421, 474,485, 512, 548, 582. 7 How., 798, 8 Wend., 502, 2 Blatchf., 105, 2 " 302, 3 Story, 122, 2 Opin., 572, 1*^ How. Pr., 04, 4- Blaekf , 57, Sup. Ct., 1848. M. Y., 18:'.2, " 1851. " 1852. Mass., 1844. 1833, N. Y., 1859. Tnd., 1835 I L. Int. & Hov., 22, N. Y^., 1828, 6 Pet, 218, Sup. Ct., 1832, Pet., 0. C, 394, Pa., 1817, " " 476, I Story, 11, MS. (App. Cas.), II II I. II 11 II 4 Mefjean, 456, II How., 248, " 1817, Mass., 1839, D. C, 1847. " 1854. " 1853, " 1860. Ohio, 1848. Sup.Gt., 1850. 188, 275, 335, 356. 120, IGl, 645. 612. 256, 486, 612. 150, 191, 242, 302, 339, 343, 346, 347, 482, 588,012, 622, 647, 050, (!54. 95, 155, 130, 231, 302, 338, 341, 342, 355, 436, 519, 556, 631, 636, 650. 430, 583, 589, 590. 98, 103, 209, 357, 358, G2G, 643 135, 137, 139, G73. W^^y mi^' TT ■^i ■*•*.»» ^•i siywwwww ^ta^W-'A: i4 TAIJLE OF CASES, A. IN ALI'IUIIETIOaI, OUDKU, with UKt-KllKNCKH TO I'AllKH WIIKIIB lOlND. Urc^jorv, Hiirr v. (Jrillitli, KalliM V. (JroviT \ linker Sew. Mudi. ("(•. r. .Slout, Guild, Siuviri i'. < liiiiii, l'(i()|)i'r I), Uuyuii i'. tJCITfll, IIiii>;lit, Tlioinpson V. IhiiiK s, Kii^j:^ r. UhII, Hiinvll ('. " Du'lviiisoa V. " I'ills V. " " »'. " V. Wiles, " AVooihvortli )'. Iliiiiloiilici'k, Ai'iiisiroiig i'. Iliilldrk, I'lirkei- c. Iliinlesty r. Smitji, llaniioM r. Itird, lliii|ii'f. Mciiik r. iiuri'is, (iilisoii ('. " Nicliols V. Iliirl^linni ('. |)iiy, lliitlirld, I'iirkiT /'. Halimwiiy r. Koiicli, llauHskucclit ('. Claypool lliiwi'S, U'llura ;'. Jlawkins, Uk'ott v. Ilawiey /'. Haf,duy, llawiMlli, Parker v. Ilaydi'ii, Kx parte, Ha UK'S, lilaiiclmrd v. Hays, Jk'llas i: llayward, ("lialFeo v. '• Day V. Ila/ard r. (jreen, Head, Stevens t'. '■ )'. " Heath, Hildreatli v. " V. Wrif^ht, Hciliior i,'. liattin, lloiiio V. Appletoii, Jleiiirich v. Liitiier, IleiiriqiieM, Howard )'. Henry, Kx parte, Henry, Hovey v. Herbert v. Adams, lierniaucc, Buck v. " " V. " " V. Hcrriet, Kingslcy v. Herring v. Lellingwell, Hcttick, Evans v. " " r. Hiatt V. Twotney, Jlibbard, I'lx parte. Hicks, Kicliardsou v. " V. Sliaver, " Williams v. Iligbee, Eyre v. Higgins, Smith v, " " V. 2 Palno, 426, Wright, 3U;!, I MS, 1 (iail., 48.5, 4 H. Mun, 59 I, 1 Ulutehl'., 244, N. Y., 182S. Ohio, i«3:i. N. Y., 1800, MaHH, ISKI. Kv, 1844. N: Y., 1847, CCS. 210, 233, 260, C50, CO I. II. 1 IT. S. L. .To., H5, 5G3, N. Y, 1822. MS. (.Vj.).. ("a.s). 1). C, 1805. 1 Ma.x.. 147, Mass., 1818, 11 IMek., 'J 17, " 1833. 2 Ulalehr. •J'.".), N. Y., 1851. 3 Ulatehf., 201, " 1851, 2 " 1114, " 1851, 184,219,235, 350, G71. 249, 250, 259, 333, 1 W. .t M., 248, :!80 , Mass., 181(5. :i.\. v.L. ub.-*., 4;;, N. v., 1H44. MS., I'a., 1858. 3 hid., :vj, Ind., 18;')!, 20.3. 22 \Ven. C, iHaL 1!' How., 211, Sup. Ct., 185G 126, IGO, 326, 549, 4 McLean, 01, Ohio, IK If). 2 W. A M., (i;{, Mass., 184(1, 218, 487. 1 Black, 431, Sup. Ct., 18G1 300. M.'^. (A pp. (!aH.), I). C, \ 859. 2 A. J.. Jour., 319, AVi.«., 1849. MS.. N. Y., 1855, 584, 588, 675 4 .McLean, 370, HI.. 1848. MS. (Aj.p. Cas.), ]). C, 18G0, 154, 249, 311, 503, 610, 070. 6 W. L. .lonr., 82, N. H.. 1848. 5 S. &. Rawie, 427, I'a, 1819. 20 How., 208, Sup. Ct., 1.S57. a t> 1857. MS. (A pp. Cas.), H. C, 1847, 489, 611. 9 Venn., 17 1, Vt., 1837. 19 Wend., 411, N. v., 1838, 202, 527. MS. (.Vpji. Cas.), I). C. 1841. 3 Wall., .Jr., !■• . i«(;i, 275, 482. 27 renu.. 517, 1 .^ IH,.'', 204, 280, 457, G19. 4 Blatchf., >" \ , ; <57, 91, 211,214, : {79. 6 McLean, 345, (.-• " '.S^ , 258, 48G, 515, 523, 571, CUO, 3 .'^and. S.C, 725, Jv'. \' ' jL MS. (A pp. Cas.), ]). C, :,„-.G, 137, 138. 3 W. L. Jour., 153, Mass., 1846. 4 Mason, 15, " 1825, Ill, 150, 162, 279, 653 9 Law Kep., 545, N. Y., 184G. 1 Blutchl'., 322, " 1848. 1 " 398, " 1819. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1854. 11 11 ii " 18G1, 281, 292, 307. 3 Wash., 408, Pa., 1818. 7 Whesit, 453, Sup. Ct., 1822. IDev. AIJat.Kq., 31; ),N. Car., 183G, 201, 694, MS. (App. Cas.), 1). C, 1857, 277, 352. MS. (A])[h Cas.), D. C, 1854. 11 11 11 " 1801, 418, 429, 4^2 2 Vorin., 36, Vt, 1829. 22 How. Tr., 205, N. Y., 18G1, MS., " 1856. it " 1857. TAIU.K OF CASES, A. 41 IN AI.l'lIAItKTICAI. OIIUKU, WITH UKKKllKNCKS TO I'AOKS WIIKIIK KUfM). Hi^'K'"'*) S'oitl* ''• M.S., N. Y., 1850. " " r. It " 1800. " ypurkiiiaii f. 1 Itlatehf., 205, " 1810. " " (', ■2 •• 2!l, " 1840. " r. Stronjr, •1 llliiekl'., IS'.', Tnd., 1M30, 1C4, 201, 062. llililri'ulli, KiliiiimilH V. Itl 111., 2 If., HI., 1H.54. " V. lloaih, MS. (App. Caa.), 1). C, 1811, 00, 97, I'J 18, 144, 1.50, 177, 213, 424, 410, 155, 409,005,028, 059, 001, ()05, 072, 083. " V. Turuor, 17 HI., 184, HI., 185.'-.. 100, 204. Hill, Hull V. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1851. •• r. Uiiiiklfo, t( 41 ti " 18.'.7, 298, 200, 450. • " V. TliucriiKT, i.T hid., :ir.i, Ind., IH.IO, IGi). Kilo, MiilCcniaii i'. C lud., l^.S, " 18.-.5. iiiil)l)H V. Kraiu'iiis, 11) Ilow. I'r., 0G7, N. Y., 1800, 274, 4U, C91. lliij,% Eiiiursoii /'. •2 Uluteht'., 1, " 1845. " V. Kmerson, How., KH, Sup.Ct., 1847, 132, .:i3, 511, 518, 257, 487, .190, 60.3, 051, 058,000, 090. 504, " V. " 11 How., 587, Sup.Ct., 1850, , 235, 257, 03 i, 05':, 410, 494, 503, 504, 008. 612, Ilolbrook, Contos v. 2 Sand. Ch., 580, N. Y., 184.5. Ilok'ombo, Story v. 4 MeLean, ;!()(!, Ohio, 1847. Jldlilcii r. (lurtin, 2 N. llanip., (11, N. H., 1819. 1G4, 1C7, 199, 691, G5a ildlliiiiil, Potter V. MS., Ct,., 1858. lluUiday, Klicum i'. Hi I'eiin., :M7, Pa., 18.-.1. " i: Ulioom, 18 " .1U5, " 1852, 132, 500, 523, 529. Ilolzalb, I'.nmswick V. MS., Ohio, l.s.W. Hopkins r. liarniiin, MS. (.\pp. Cas.), I». C., 1854, 135. ll(i|ikiiis V. 1,1'wis, MS. (App. Cms.), 1). (!., 18.59, 136. lIotc'hkiHS V. Groenwood, 4 MeliOan, If)!!, Ohio, 1848, 194, 453, 478, 479, 489, 514 , " V. " 11 How., 218, Sup.Ct., 1850, , 254, 474, 478, 489. " V. niivor, 5 Denio, :U4, N. Y., 1848, 122, 250, 302, 339, 628. " Rich .'. 10 Conn., 4(19, Ct., 1844. Hovty V. Iloury, 3 W. L. Jour., 15:?, Mass., 1845, 183, 282, 072. 131, 183, 301, 432,488,571, 605, " V. Stevens, 1 Wood, k Min., 290, " 1840, 291, 334,302,390, 309, ■102, 432, 511, 521,528,013. " V. '• 3 Wood. & Min., 17, " 1840, 218, 131, 082. 351. 473, 522, 544, 633, Howard, Ames v. 1 Sunin., 482, " 183.3. " V. llfiiriquos, a Sand. .S. C, 72.5, N. Y., 1851, C89. IIowo r. Abliott, 2 Storv, 199, Mass., 1812, 187, 254, 301, 484, 488, 550. " J[lUlt 1'. MS. (App. Cns.), P. C, 1855. " v. Morton, i;i Mo. L. Uep., 70, Mass., 1800, 18G, 33.3, 357, 370, 564, OGG 1, " ?'. Scarinjr, 19 Ilow. Pr., 14, N. Y., l.MOO, 98, 348, 41,5, 091. " 1'. Underwood, MS., Mass., 1854, 314,427, 4;!4, GOO. TToyt, Ex parte. MS. (Api>. Caa.), 1). (.;., 1800, all, 441, Oil. " r. McKenzie, 3 liarl). Ch., :!20, N. Y., 1848, 104, 221, 202, 458, 476. " Sto|ilu'iison v. M.S. (App. (V-), 1). C, 1854. Iliiiison r. I'atten, 1 Hoot, la Ct., 1789, 357. " Saillier v. 2 Curt., 0, Me., 1854. liiiline, I'arkcr v. 7 W. L. .Four.. 417, I'a., IS49. ilumiihrey, Peti'rson v. 4 Abb. Pr.. a94. N. Y., 1857. •' "Wintcnnute v. 10 W. L. .Tour., 52, Ohio, 1851. Hunt, Bedford r. 1 Mason, a()2, Mass., 1817. " ?'. I [owe, MS. (Aj.p. Cas.), J). C, 1855, 97, 145, : 152, 606, COS. Hunter, Allen j'. G McLean, a03, Ohio, 1855. " Youn,!; ?'. 2 Seld., 20.1, N. Y., 18.52. Huntington, ^Iorri3 v. 1 Paine, 348, " 1824. " Rudderow v. 3 .Sand., S. C, 252, " 1849. " Toeso V. 23 Ilow.. 2. Sup. Ct., 1859 1^ Huntley, Cross r. 13 AVond., 385, N. Y.,1835. Hussey i'. McCorinick, MS., HI., 1859, 284, 546, 620. " V. Whitoloy, t( Ohio, 1801, 11.3, 169, 404, 464. Hutcliinaon v. Meyers, MS. (App. Cas.), D.C., 1801, 278, " Wliipple V. 4 Blatehf., N. Y., 1868. m w- W:h v.^wi^^ . 3 ■fil m vw .J± ^^W^i*W^ n -Hi 42 TABLK OF CASES, A. IN ALi'lIAllKTICAL OUr)KU, WITH HKFKIIKNCK.H TO I'AOIIS WIIKHK »'UUM). ITyntt, Cornell r. IJyilc, Carvor v. Tylur V. Iinlay t'. Nor. k Wor. IJ. 11., iMunes V, Coojier, JiiekHon, Ex. parte, Juf.'obH, K.\ parto, " Ulan. (Jiin-Stk. Fac. f, Jaciiue.><, Jdllio i'. JiiKt^iT, Many II. JuiiiuB, Gray v. " " V. " Lnidloy v, Jumt'son, I'ilt.s v. Jniiru'v, K.x piirlc, JcllVi'y, McCluro v. JeroiiK', »\l('( 'orinick i>, Jcwutt k Itodt, K.x purto, Jowett, liuirull I'. " Rotors V. .Tillaon v. WiiiHor, JohtiHon, (libba v. " Novins V. " V. Root, " Smith V. " Turner v, •' William.? v. .Tollio V. Jao(|iioH, Jiiliill'o V. Collins, Jones, Adani.s v. " Justice V. " Livin^rston v. " Morryiield v, " North V. " V. Thome, " V. Wetliercll, " Wieker.shaff v. " Wilson V. Jordan, Evans v. " " V. " V. Overseers of Poor, Judd, Woolsey v. Judkins v. JCarlo, Judsou V. Cope, V. Day, V. Moore, MS. (App. Ca.M.), 1« Pot., 01 :i, •i Biutuw:, :!U8, p. C. 1«C(I. Sup. Ct., 1.S12. N. v., ISOl. I. MS., 4 Wash., 259, Ct., is:)8, Pa., 1821, J. MS. (App. Cas.), II II 2 Blutchf., CO, 1 •' CI 8, 1 '' :!72, Pet. C. C, :t9 1, •no, MS. (Api'. Cas.), 1,1 liarli. S. (!., iilO, MS. (App. Ca.'*.), K Ind., 7!), :{ lilatchf., ISC, MS. (.Xjip. (;a,s.), 2 I'aiKc, i;tt, 12 Mo. L. Rep., ;!:;t), MS. (A J)]). Cas.), II II 3 Watehf., 80, MS., 4 Blatchf., 2 Cra. C. C, 287, 2 Uosw., 1, 1 lilalelif.. CI 8, 21 Mo., .•i:!,S, ;i Wall., .Jr.. M.^. (.\pp. Ca.s.), iJ Wall.. .Ir., 2 Curt., HOG, 4 Blatfhf., 1 N. Y. L. Obs., 408, Ms. (App. Cas.), 2 Wliar. Diff., 413, 3 Blatehf., 227, 1 lirock., 248, Cra., 109, 4 Ohio, 294, 4 Duer, 379, 7 Grcenl., 9, MS., " & Goodyear v. Rubber Co., Justice V. Jones, KanowTS, Reutpen v. Keeue v. XA'heatley, Un i D. C, 18.10, " 1809, N. Y., 1847. " 1850. " 1843. Pa., 1817. " 1817. ]). C, 18C0. N. Y., 185.1. I). C., 1847, Ind., 1850. N. Y., 185G. 1). (;., i85;t, N. Y., 18;t0. .Mass., \H-,H. 1). (;., 1850, " 1800. N. Y., 181:!. Mass., 1858, 102, 309, 387, 440, 613, 634. 207, 388, 398, 575. 143. 2C1. 135, 409, C60, 140, 152, 294, 305. N. Y., 1858. D. C, 1822. N. Y., 1857. " 1850, Mo., 1855, Pa., 1859. ]). C, 1850. Pa., 1801. Mass., 1855. N. Y., 1857. " 1843, D. C, 1855, Pa., 1848. N. Y., 1854. A'a., 181». Sup. Ct., 1815. Ohio, 1831, 481, 499. N. Y., 1855. Me., 1830, 200. Ohio, 1800, 178, 278, 283, 304, 319, 309, 423 451, 610, 619, 524, 504. 104, 21.3, 221, 202,487, 04:! 108, 204, 695. 25.1, 470, 045. 177. 294, 300, 480. It *mau, Purkhurat v. V. u u u V. It V. tl V. li Kiltlo V. Morrinm, Kncuss V. kScliuylkill Bnnk, V. Kniglit t'. Gnvit, Kromcr, Evans v. Lndil, Clinndlor v. Laidloy r. JuincH, Lnirb's Case, Landjjran", vStokcB v. Langdon v. Do Groot, Lamed, Sargont v. Larovvo, Ex jiarto, Latta V. Shawk, Lateliom, Mullikon v. Leach, Kx parte, Le Clere, Dennis v. Lee V. Blandy, Leflingwoll, Herring v. Leiper, Simpson v. Lonioino v. (iauton, Le Hoy, Tatliam v. " " V. " V. Tutliam, " V. " Lewis, Davidson v. " Hopkins V. " Lowoll V. Liesor, Coleman v. Lillio V. Kolscy, Linton, Ex parte, Lippincott v. Kelly, " Rich v. I W. L. Jour., 513, Pa, 1844. MS. (A pp. CaH.), D. C, 1H58. " " " 1811, 2 n. I., r.06. •21 How., :f.".', 1(1 Wlioat., :t3H, 4 Illacki:, :,i, MS. (,\pp. Cmh.), 3 Diiur, 024, MS., 2 Gray, 370, MS. (.\pp. t'as.). It. I„ IS.-iM, Silj). Ct., 1858, " 1825, Iiid., lM:t5, J). U., 1853. N. Y., 1H54. " 1851», Mass., 18,")4. 1». C, 1850, i:!7, 138, 150, 25:i, 250,432, 610, GIO. 05, 07, 140, 467, 601, C20, Cl'.i. li:i, 370, 580. 2U1. 10 .Mo. L Hop., 0:!1, (!t.(;iins.,1857, 1 How., 202, Sup. Ct., 1843. MS. (App. (!as.). I). C, LS.Vl, 2 llaLst. Ch., 000, N. J., 1847. j2Iliatvl.f., 72;8N. I jj y .„ ^ } Y.L.OI.M., 75 70, p- '^•' '"'^• 2 matfhl"., 70, '• 1848. 2 " 78, " 1848. < I Blatelif., 488; 8 ) „ ,„,„ 1 X. ^'. L. 01)S., 140, f '"''''• 18 How., 289, Sup. Ct., 1855, 373. 418, 444, 480, 400. 281, 530, 093. 135. 2 Curt., 475, 4 M'ash., 9, MasH., 1S55, I'a., 1820, 4 " lOG, " Mir. Pat. Off., 04, 131, " 1821, 1840, 101,120,158, 170,222, 280, 497, G2G. 185, 483, 500, 523, CC3. 155, 215, 231, 250, 341, 430, 482, 504, 632, G40. 217. 114, 233,257,300,371, 421,504 650. Pet. 0. C, 215, " 18 IG. li ft MS. (App. Gas.), D. C, 1857. 11 il U " 1800, 95, 141, 143, 419, 616. 5 Oi)in., 725, 1820, 109. 17 Barb. S. C, 008, N. Y., 1853. 1 Paine, 203, " 1822, 130, 308, 353,430,455, 671, 032. 517, 520, 2 Curt. 340, Mass., 1855. MS. (App Cas.), D. C, 1800, 15.3, 18G, 193. MS., Ohio, 1859, 190, 283, 318,345,347, 513, 51G, 600. 440, 472 7 Blackf., 13G, Ind., 1844. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C., 1800, 435. 1 Mart., 297, La., 1811. MS., Ohio, 18G0, 108, 180, 190, 207,284, 441, 503, 610, 603, 658 295, 311, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C., 1801. 2 Whar. Dig., 414, Pa., 1848. 2 E. D. Smith, 343, N. Y., 1854, 110,375,376, 685. MS., " 1840, 653. 2 BlMtchf, 474, " 1852. 14 How., 15G, Sup. Ct., 1852 184, 200, 474, 484, 553, 591 22 How., 132, " 1859 ISO, 472, 553, 595. MS. (App. Gas.), D. C., 1858. 11 II 11 " 1850. 1 Mason, 182, Mass., 1817. MS., Oliio, 1859. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1858, 419. a tl 11 " 18G0, 137. 1 W. L. .Tour, 513, Pa., 1844, 248, 633, COO. 26 .Tour. Er. Inst., 13 (3d Ser.), " 1853. >^(: Hf^>-.^.- Vcvr^w. ji. TAIW-K OF CASKS, A. IN AI.I'IIAUKTIOAI, ORUKB, WITH UKKKBKNCItH TO I'AdKH WIIKIIB FOUND, Little t'. Gould, »t 4t it " t'". Hall, " I'ark r. LKtlcIli'ld, OiT V. Livin^Htun, v. Jonci*, '• f. Van Iiigon, " V. " " V. Wooilwortli, Locke, lli'U ('. Lognii, Sunders v. Loriiif,', Till limn v. liowber, Till ham v. " " V. Louden v. Blrt, ],i)Ulli. Savory v. J-ovciidgo 1). Putebor, Lowell V. Lewis, Lullier, lllenrich f. Lyman, (ioddard v. Lyouii, Day v. Jfc Alpine, Tloyd v. Meliiirney v. (ioodyear, " (ioodyear i'. MeCay v. Hiirr, Me(^liire r. .rellVey, MeCliirg i', Kliigslund, McCormick, Davis v. " IIuHsey V. " V. Jerome, '• V. Kelcluim, V. Manny, V. Seymour, V. " II " V. Seymour, " Sevmour v. " ■ •' V. " V. Talcott, " Wilder V. McCullogh, HoU V. McDonald's Case, JfeDoiij^al ('. Fogg, Mcl^owell r. Meredith, Jlelilroy, Miller v. MeFall v. AVilson, McGaw V. Bryan, MoKenzie, Hoyt v. ]Mclvernan v. Hito, MeQuewan, Bloomer v. Mnckay, I']x parte, Mad. Riv. R. R., Simpson v. Mann, Kx parte. Many v. Jaggor, " ircCormick v. 2 Blutehr., 105, 2 " :it;2, 18 How., |i!H, 3 \Va.«li., l!), 275, 301, 350, 302, 42(.. 433 544, 000, 673. 301,314, 420, 443, 472, 544. 237, 250, 251, 351, 545. 108, 190, 277,318,357,304,37.?, 487. 149. 205. 202. 105. 228, 054. 106. 186. 475, 486. 291, 334, 344, 354, 42.5, 4.J2, 437 511, 522, 636, 598, 683 Many i: Sizer, " Sizi-r i: Marnli, Kx pai Miin-y " Tioii Mardi'ii, liiiiili M.ii'hIi '. ildliii " l''oi.-i(im Marvliall /■. M, .Mui'Mn, Mi'iiiK I MU.HUI1, i'eiin i;, " Urant " V. TmIIii .\I,i. 11 Jfiiiile, Kx ()artt Mayer, Piu'lps i Mayhew, Diullo .Miiyaanl, Kx \»i Mayor, fn-., S. Y II Mee, Marshiill v JteiluH ('. Silsbec Meiick, I'ariridg >• II II II Mproor, Smith v. MiTrliJiiit, I'Vtrid Jlcrciliih, McI)o| MiTriam, KitlU Merrill. Orr r. MerrilleM r. .lor Mcrriin'k .Manuf Meyers, ''iittlng " Kdmuni " Hulchi V. Turn. Middlesex Co., Miller i'. McKIro' Millett r. Snowdi Mini's Assigiieo Mitchell ?'. Hard; Sickles Mix V. Perkins, Mixter, (iorham Monk V. Harper, Moody )'. Fiske, Moore, Comstock " Foster v. " Jud.son V. Moroy, Ciino v. Moditt V. (iarr, Morrill v. Worthi Morris v. Barrett, " V. Iluntinj. Ifcrso, Bain v. " V. O'ReUly, " V. " " O'Roilly, V. Morton's Case, Howe V. Mowry v. Barber, ^*99%i. TAIW.K or CASKS, A. 4.') IN AU'lUIIKTlCAti OttUKR, WITH RXriHKNOKH TO VAdVS WIIKUK FOUMt). jmUj* %n • •'■*' ^»Ss%^., Many i: Sl/or, MS.. Mass., 1S19, 181, 230, 295, 391, 448, 637. '^•^. ^ ■ " ,Si/.t,T 1'. 1(1 IIiiW,, !)H, Sup. Cl„ 1853. ^J ^"m^h^H ^ V Miirsh, Kx jiiirto, MS. (Ai-p. c;«H.), It. C,, l.HtiO, 251, 490. S**^.^'* Miiif.v " Til liter, It u " IHC.O, 9.S, US, 152, 284, 020. K)i«f Miinlfii, I)iiiil)iir V. U V. Ifamp., 311, N, ir„ IHI2. ■gfc-^jv 1 Jlilisll 1'. ilillill>,'S, 7 Ciish., :',■>■>, Mass., 1851, GS9. '^^^^Jl Wfta^. " Kolsolii ('. '2 Sliiry. 100, " IMII. •^l' t^M^Blk. ^^J^^^^^hA Kl^^^^^^^l Miirsliiill /•. Mi'i>, MS. (App. Cas,), 1>. C., 1 853, 297, 311, 420, 448, 606, 083. Mar»,in, liciiiiott v. C Mo., MW, Mo., INK). jlllrtOll, J'lMII w. 20 Mow., I9S, Hup. Ct., 1.S57. ^^^m^w^/uS" ^ " CJraiit 1'. 1 ],. Inl.,fcll..iv., 22, N. v., IH28. ^^^fL.^iwi'*,' " r. 'ralliiinn, 1 lllatelil'., r.2'J, H. I., 1850, 030. ^'^'isjm^UMim^^ Miisiiry, Ilroiik. W. L. Co. v. 2.''. Ilarli. S. (;., HO, Nf. Y.. 1857. i^^SfevMIUj/lB MiitthcwH, Cipopor r. H Law. Hep., 4i:i, Pa., 18 12. " UoDilyour I'. 1 I'aine, 300, Ct., 1814. CSndCi^^^EH^M^^B^^^I " )'. SkiiUm, MS. Ala., 1800, 197, 444. #SMkCMSi^H " AV'ailu u. 5 di.in., 220, 1849. ^^PILLl iT"'-"'^ II It t,_ MS. (App. Cas.), U. C, 1850. ^^Emrkii^. ^'- Mniilo, Kx parto, 11 11 " 1853, 253, 421, 474, 490 Lm^mm Mavi'i-, IMi.'IpM I'. 15 1 row., ifio. Sup. CI „ 1853 Maylimv, UwWvy v. 3 Coins., !), N. v., 1849. Muyiianl, Kx parto, MS. (App. Cas.), 1). C, l.s.57, 478. ^EPMJ^il: i.. . Muyur, itc, N. V., Uanaora v. MS.. N. Y.. 185(5. 11 y^ 11 2:t Mow., 4H7, Sup. (.'1,., 1859 240. i^^'^4J ^aif '^HRHHH " lliitchinaon v. MS. (A]ip. (las.). 1). C„ 1801. fe;^i^^Affl|Jfri/ ,' ■ Ji^^^M " V. Tumor, 17 111., 17'J, Ill, 1855, 204. ' ^^^^^srIbI MiiMloscx Co., Wliipplo v. MS., Mass,, 1859. Miller )'. McKlroy, 1 Am. Ti.Rcg., 198, Pa., 18;i9, 211, 358, 377. VibiM^^i^'linii^^SHHH Millolt i: Snowdcn, Mini's Assinnco v. Ailams, 1 W. L. Jour., 240, 3 AVall., Jr., N. Y., 184.3, Pa,, 1801, 103, 359, 410, 58.3, 611 128, 017. /Mw iN Mitchell V. Barclay, MS., N. Y., 1800, 281, 387, 395,464. «*jJ^KjLj' " RicklcH V. Mix )'. Perkins, 3 niatchn, 548, MS. (App. Cas.), " 1857. D, C, 1859, 3;iW!»r!A l^V, 95. ^^^NiH'ffff^ Mixter, (iorham v. 1 Am. L. Jour., 543, Mass., 181,9. Monk V. Harper, 3Kdw. Ch.. 109, N. Y., 1837, 103, 221, 202. j4 of^ /WC^^sOBBBII^Bl Moody V. Fisko, 2 Ma.son, 112, Ma.ss,, 1820, 105, 181, 187, 502, 521, 520, 63.' /Wj^|gf~Wby^^TTi^ff^^^^ Mooro, Comstock v. 18 How. !'r., 421, N. Y., 18C0. """j^ijVL i [ ^i^^w** f"M|i'^EM " Foster v. 1 Curt., 279, Ma.ss., 1852. ^sSSSriiiiiffl " Jtidson V. MS., Ohio. 1800. Moroy, Case v. 1 N. Ilamp., 347, N, II., 1818. ^'^^h!3^KmsjO Moffitt V. (Jarr, MS., Ohio, 1800, 108, 501, 530, 616, 625 663. Morrill ?'. WorthingtoD.. 14 Mass., 389, Mass., 1817, 104, 052. W'Un^V-B^L 1^^^ . ^i^^J mi^^w^ Morris v. liarrett, MS,, Ohio, 1858, 108, 318, 440,487,603, 524, 575 1 1^ " V. JIuutiagton, 1 I'aino, 348, N. Y., 1824, 92, 97, 415, 456, 507, 650, 653, 693, 590, 012. jfcujJL i W iy|^i0ii Mcrso, Bain v. MS. (App. Ca?.), T). C, 1849. •!WBf^g|OTj ^' ^^^'^^'-* " V. O'RcUly, 6 Pa. L. Jour., 501. Pa., 1848, 122. ' " -'-i^^Sd ^h^y^y^^ " V. " " O'Roilly, V. MS,, 16 How., 62, D. C, 1849, Sup.Ct, 1853 380, 396. Sif^^ fciJ^W." '^~ "^^ v«' *^ V- Morton's Case, 8 Opin., 269, 1856. ' 152, 481, 600, 530, 594 " '-Sf ijfcj^ ■ ^V**^* ^ , ta^ "-^ *-^ \* ^ " IIowo V. MS., Mass., 1859. 4 ■ ■ >iw*w*4 Mowry v. Barber, MS. (App. Cos.), D. C, 1858, 98, 153, 607. %rfLJ j "^^'<^^^||^ ■L; i rvW iiiiiUTT/ - %|^^g "tQS^w 'tjWuWww.,. ^L ^^^' ^BrB^L, I ww«-3w~;-— i 4(1 TAHLK OF TASKS, A. ii I. LI IX Al.l'll VIIMh'M, (lUUKIt, WITH URrKKKNCKH ID l'Aiil.;i VV lli:lll rOUNa NfoviT, PUon r. Miillikrii i: liiitcliom, MiiriMiiii, l'!x iiarlo, Miir|ihy, ('lirlHty v, Miirry, llull v. Miixi'iin Kiiir Cu. v. Amor. Iliiir Co. Mycra, ItcilxTt* v. " V. 'riiriiiT, 4 Wimli , rt«, 7 llla.kr., i:i(l, MS. (.\|i|.. CiiM.), 12 How. I'r, 77, lU runii., Ill, i 4 lllulohf., 1.1 Mo. r,. Hep n n., 170, 190, Pa, 1921. IikI., IHtl, I>. «'., lHf.ll, N. Y.. l.SMJ. I'll., I.'^IM. N. Y., 185H, MiiHH., IHGU. 111., 1HS5, 203. UO. 30S. 204. N. Nat. nk. Nolo Co., Tupimn v. MS., N. Y., 18(11. Nut. .St. (limm'Co., I'lirloy v. M.S. (App. Coh.), P. ('., I^jO. NcjriiK, Hli«M I'. 8 MiiMM, '10, MaHH.. IHll. N.'smitli r. Calvort, 1 W 1. A- Miri., Ml, Masn., 1H.|5, Ncviimr. .lohtiMon, :i lllaicjif., 80, N. Y., 1h5:I, Nfwall, (lallitiK ('. !» I ml., 572, Iii'l., 1H57. Ni-wnrklml. Kill., (lo., Pay r. 1 IllalohC, 0'J8, N. Y., IM.'.O. N.w Casllo A Fr. T... U. H, ) (.j,,,^, ,„,„^.,,f o-.M, M.I., 1.S50. \\ inaiis r. | i i i N. E. (Jar Spg. Co., riinlToo v. MS.. N. Y., I85.t. " Dayt'. 3 Ulatclif., 164, 179, " l.H.Vl. " V. Union Pub. Co., MS. (App. Cos.), K..1, 221, 2<'.l, 2(i7, 29:i, 0:tO. 101, 107, 22«, 200, 3S0, (iii7. 4 lilatchf., [ M.S., 21 How., 88. ^4Hiatolif., MS., N. l'!. .StTi'W Co. r. Sloan, Ni'wiiiaii. K.x parto, N. \'. .fe Itik. IJrass Co., VTa tiM-ljiirv liniss Co. r. N. Y. \.'K. U. H., WinatiH 1', N. Y. (). P. Comb Co., I'op- pcnliuiiHcn V. N. Y. (1. I'. Comb Co., Pop- pciihouwii V. XT IT •. rr I. T> -ii'- ( 31 .Tour. Fr. Inst., | N. Y. & liar. R. U., ^\ mans v. j ,,.,„ ^.„, j^^,^ ,_ } Nowton's Cnne, 2 Opin., 571, Nichols V. llarri.'*, MS. (Ajip. Cuh.), " V. RiigKlL'fl, 3 I'iiy, II 5, Noali, Snowileu r. 1 liojik. Cii., 347, Norlli V. .loiit'S, 4 Itlatchf., Norton, Ciflioro v. MS., Norw. fi Wor. U. tt., Imlajr v. MS., Noiir.sf's Ca.>ar.s, " WoodcocI rarklmrst, Cundc " V. Kin Kmsm Parsons v. Uarnar " Sanders Partridge v. Menc " V. " " V. " .'atton. Blunt v. '' Hudson V. " Sloat V. *< ii V. Ponrco, Smith v. Peek V. Bacon, " V. Parrington Pcudloton, Van II( |?*t TAlir.r. OF TASKS, A. IM Ai.i>ii.\u»:riuAt. ()itti»:it, with iiKrGiiK.vcKit to v.\ovm wukhm roi'Ni). •r^i Cnclllv •'. f rnlth, Ma. (App. Cm^ ), P. C, UM, 2H0, 208, 418. Orr. 1 ;\ piirli', tt M " iH.Mt, 475. " f. llikilKi'i*, 7 I.IIW n>\>. I1J5 MilM*., 1M4I, ,T,MI, 401, 514, 02.1. " I'. liitlli'lli'lil, 1 WiHiil. ,V Mill., in. N'. 11, IHJ.V :im:i, :too, ;i',mi, 4oa. " r, M.-rrlll, I 1. :i7"1,Mm.. ihhi. 271, aau, 380, 4U2. " It itililiono V. 6 Mi-IiKiin, 131, Midi., IH.'iO. UvirHoera of Poor, Jonlnn i'. 4 Ultlo, 'iU i. I» Uhlo, IHItl. PllC. ^fiiii a. a. Co., aickios r. 4 TUfttohf , • N'. v.. 1 S.-.7. Vtw, Karlo t'. 6 N. liump., 77, N. II., |h;h. II V. Forry, MS., Mluh., IHil, 2^0, 277, .m, n51,300, 4:1 1, 4:i'.», 4H7. 501,613, 6ti:i, 035, 082. 372, 610, 417, 520, • 11 r. (icorKia, Ma., N.Y., mo, 5u:i. II I'liilliim V. 24 How., 150. iSiip.ct.. iHt;o r.vinn , Viiniiai)i V. 1 IIitrriiiK., , lU'l., I8;ij. IVilmor ('. Alliin, MS., N. Y,,18.'.4, 584, 075. 1 DiivU V. a llr.M'k., 20S, Vii., I.s:i7. II Hono V, 28 Mi»., 5:11), Ml.., 18.-.!). ['Mik V. Mtllc, n WiiMli.. IIM), P.I.. lHi;i, 10."., 307, 333, 340, 370, 4.V1, 031. I'lirkiT 1'. liiimkor, HH, (MS. (l.'i.s. 3C0 674, 11 V. Ilulmo, 7 W. li. Jour, 417, Ptt., 1840, 220, 2:14. 30,-., 3C.2, 410 421 442, 471, 518, 574, 503,508 II 1'. PorkiuH, MS.. " 1818. 234. II Porry v. 1 Wooil. A ill.. 281 , MiiHH., 18IG. 11 V. Sourrt, MS., Pft., 1850, 132, 248, 272, 384,385 405, 522, 520. 574. 392 400, V. Stilos, " 'Woodcock V. ParUhurst, Cundoll v. " 1', Kinsman, 11 y^ a " V. " " V. " " V. " " Kinsman v. Parsons v. Barnard, " Sanders v. I'artridgo t'. Menck, " V. " " V. " ?atton, Blunt v. '' IIud.son V. " Sloat V. " " V. Ponrco, Smith v. l\'(.'k V. Bacon, " V. Parrikigton, Pcudloton, Van Hook v. 5 Mufjoan, 44, Ohio, 1849, 1 (iall., 438, MS, (App. Cas), 2 Ilalst. Ch., 000, Mnos., 1813. ]».(;,, 1847. N. J., 1847, (2Blutc.hf.,72;8N. )^ y ,„,„ I Y. L. Ol.M., 75, 70, p^-*" ^^'^^' 2 Blatchf., 70, " 1818, 2 " 78, • " 1848, 1 " 488, " 1840, 18 now., 289, 7 Ji.hn, 141, MS, (App, Cas.), 2 Sand, ('h., 022, 2 Uarb. Cli.. 101, How. Ajip. Cas., 5 2 Paine, 303, 1 Hoot, 133, 4 W, L, Jour., 49 24 Jour. Fr. Inst, (3d Sor.), 2 McLean, 170, 18 Conn., 377, 9 AVcnd., 44, 1 Blutchf., 187, Rup.Ct., 1855. N. v., 1810, 1). C, 1859. N. Y., 1840, " 1847, 17, " 1848, " 1828. Ct, 1789. , Pa., 1840. 25, " 1852. Ohio, 1840. Ct., 1847, N. Y., 1832, " 1846. 100, 132, IHO, 214,250,283,303, 301, 3().S, 317. 1IH, 450,472, 400, 611, 618, 620,528,574, 598,008, 034. 225, 229. 122, 209. 173. 300, 401. 94, 100, 102, 121, 107, 280,301, 314, 335, 302, 421, 125, 433, 443, 44.8, 453, 470 407,598, 020. 228, 052. 374, 410, 087. 100, 272, 374, 683, 088. i^'r«.;i =^^;?»" v;^s fl«»««. ■in***- 1'!WW>'i.^..- -1 Br"l 106. 200, 200, 294, 051. S«w 'WWw^-... ri'tiilli'toti Van Hook t>. I't'luliT, V,\ |Mllll', ri'iiiK'l, KlmiT i: i'viiitut'k n. Dialii^uo, Ml\ I'. " I'lirkiT V, Perry r, CJoriioll, TAHLK OV CASKS, A. I.** AI.I'lUiiimOAI. ORUKR, WITH HRIRUKM-KH TO PAIIKS WIIKKK rolNIt, 3 ninMif. NA, MS (App t'liM), •lu Miiliii', t:iu, 4 WiMh., 038, a Tot., 1, I Opln., fli. MS. (A|>i>. CaR.), as, Wh!'(App. Cnn.), " t'. Parker, PffrTM, Wliraloii r. IVU'rnou r. llimijilirey, " r. WtiiMicn, I'cttllioiio r. Pi'iriinfuf, Plinlnn, Uiirnott v, V. " " V. riidiiH V. (;. C., l.Miil. 2 Wdod. k Mill., :!3, Mmhh., 18 Id, 103. 120, 101, 211, 214, 221, 37: 0I1,(!I2. riorsoii V. Kaglo Screw Co., 3 Story, 402, R. F., 1844, 01, 2.12, 570, 607, 072, 073. 3 Illutdif., 220, N. Y., 1S51, 01, 2.15, 'J-^o, 2s:i. 2h|, :!(I|, IIO 4l:i, 118, 1(12, 520, COO, 081, .1 Blftlfhf., 201, " 1854, 107, Ki.H, :;j-., .|,-.:i, .i;»7. 15 Hurl.. .S. C., .110, " lK5:t, 118, l'>:,, H\H, 215, 102, 408. C Mcl.i'aii, 558, 111., 1855, 180, .L'.l, ;i50, 54:1. 2 Story, 000, Mo,, 1843. 100, 10.5, 178, 182, 188,502,501, 610, 543, 580, 680.008, 001, G70. 4 "W. L. Jour., 40, Pn., 1840. M.S. (A pp. Van.), I). C.. 1842, MO, 138, 150, 059, 000. PlillllpH, Boll V. " V. Ci)inl)Htock, " V. PllR"', Pierce, Sliowcleii, r, l'ier|nmt ('. Foulo, PittH V. Hull, " V. " " V. .Tainoson, " I'. Woinpio, " V. Whitman, Plynipton, Sloat v. Pomoroy v. ConniHon, Poinl, Stiiiii)Hon V. I'oppc'iiiiuii.sen V. Falko, 2 Curt., 502, MS.. Popppuhouaon v. N. Y. 0. T. } x,a Cmil. Pn f M»., MasH., 1855. N. Y., ISO I, 1 15, 120, 217, 219, 38*!, 650, 017, 022. " May, 1858, 210, 2;i9, 240, .110, 31.5, 318, :iT.1, 381, 30.5, 4J5, 615, 6-10, 660,001, 035. Coiiil) Co., Portor, Vaiiffliani v. Potter, Arnold v. '• V. Holland, " V. WiLson, Pottle t'. Thomas, Powers, Webb v. Pratt, Bull V. Prentiss v. Kllaworth, " St. Joha V. " July, 1859, 172, 409. Vt, l.'^41. D. C, 1800. Ct., 1858, 113, 157, 18,5, 193, 252, .110, 352, 387, 30.5, 403, 513, 6I(!, 500, 50i. 015, 018, 025,003, 070. N. Y., 1800, 451, 607. Ct., 1838, 202. 2 Wood, .t Min., 497, Mas.s., 1847. 1 Conn., 342, Ct., 1815. Mir. Put. OU;, 35, Pa., 1840, 108, 224, 205, CCG. MS., N. v., 1»53. 10 Verm., 200, MS. (App. Cu9.), MS., M.S., 12 Conn,, 50.5, Vrinnlv, Hi iToiity r. J " V. " V. Pultw V. Ik Putney, till Qiiliiturd, T ItailroiidH, ri " .s " W It Itiiiikin, Tynf Uhuhoiii, r. .\( Rnfhlwin" c. fl Haw.son, I'.'x p Hayrnoiid, h, " Ch., " fJrai „ " ^'.vo Rodlleid, CasM " Siiilivl lli'din^'ton, Uii Hoed v. Cani.H " V. Ciittei DXt " Van N, IlfeveH, |)(.|| K'Htoii, Whipi Heiiifjeii i: Kai Rlieora, Hollid " V. Rico, Carr v. " " V. RIcJi Byor r. " V. /lotchkii V, Lij)piuc(i Riclinr.is, Kdwni " <':i 'ilOHO Riclinrdson, I';at; i.'o..^ "iiipr, Calioon. V. liitter V. .Sprivll ^"■"■k Hatha wa lloljort.s )'. Myer, " V. W..nl, ii'il'ort.son, Kllith nn;'crs»-. Abbott, I'Vorici], r. «'. Jeuc'tt, "z^^ iiKfi4 TAUM'. OF CASKS, A. 4U IN ALrMARmrKMr. oromi, with uitkukncu tu i'aukm wiikiik rt>i'Ni>. Prlniflo, f«'lili'n >•■ I'rutity I'. Uutr)(lu^ " V, " V. I'ultu V. Derby, Tutnoy, Uui» v. Quliiturtl, Tliomnii v. ItallroailH, (iftrxlv' iir v. " Htiiiipnon V. " Wilton V. " " V, Hmikln, Tynon v. ItutiMuiii, r. Mnyur, kc, X. It 11 li Rntlihonn v. Orr, Ifiiw-iiiii, V.x imitf, UaytiKitKl, l<., I')x imrto, " Cli., " " (Iraiit r. " Nyo V. Rodlk'lil, Ciis" »'. " Sullivan I'. IlciliiiL'tDM, Wiiilerniuto c UiM'd c. (^anisi, " V. Ciiltor, " Van NoHtrnnd v. Ri't'ViH, Del mold r. Ri'iiton, "Wiiiiiiilo J'. Ui'iitniMi r. Kaiiowrs, Rliccra, Ilolliday v. Uiec, Carr r. " " V. Rich Dyer t;. " 1'. IIotchkiflH, 17 Hurl.. R C, 46H, N. V., ISB4. 1 Htory, 6im, Miuiii., 1n4I, 1117, S6l. 10 I'ut., :i:tii. Hup. ci, \nri, im7, 6'ii. 2 Hlcirv, I'J'J, Mann., IH12, an, 2MI1, & M«il.unn, a'jH, Ulilo, iN&i, 01, lUI, 120, 3U, 321, 470, CIO, II Mu. L. Itop., ;H7, N. II,, 180H. Ma. Y. 6 Diicr., «0, 2 Wull., Jr., nr.rt, 1 " nil, 1 " 1!I2. 2 Wiuir. DIk., 110, MS. (A pp. Can.), M.S., t'. 2.1 TTow., '1M7, r> .MrLrail, l.'ll, MS. (.\pp. (!uH.), Pot., 21R, Ki III.. ir.:i. 4 MrLoaii, fi'.'O, 1 I'aliu', -111, MS., H l,a\v Hop., 410, 1 Story, &!)0, 1 WVnd, 424, 4 Aiti. I,. .Idiir., 188, MS. (App. Ca.s.), 1 Wattli., IGH, 10 IVnn., 347, 18 " 406, MS., 4 liliit.'lif., 1 Mile, l.SO, 10 (Niiiii., 100, „ Ti • .» (20 .Iipiir. Kr. Inst., ) " «'• Lil'P'"'--"". j 3d Sor., i:i, f RieliMnlH, Kdwanlfl »'. " (lilisnn V. Ridmrdsoii, KamcH v. " FoHH v. " r. Hicks, RiiifT, Cahoon, V. Hitter V. Sorn.'ll, Uoacli, Hathaway v. * Uok'rtrt )'. Myer."!, " V. Ward, Robertson, Kliithorpe v. " " V. Roftcrs r. Ahbott, " Froiicii, i: " V. Jcwull, "WriKht, 690, MS., MS. (App. Cn8.), 1 1 Mo. I-. Hep., (!70, MS. (App. Caa), MS.. 2 liliilehr., 379, 2 AVood. .t .Min., 03, 13 Mo. L. Hep., 390, 4 McLenn, r»05, MS. (App. Caa.), MS., 4 Wash., 514, MS., 12 Mo. L. Rep., 339, N. Y., 1866. N. J., IH.-iO. IV, IHIT. " IMH. " 181H. I), v., 1H.-.3. N. Y., 1H60, fliip. nt„lH6f). Mii'li., IH.'iO, 1). 0., iHiiO, " IHOI, " IHOI, Sup. Ct.» 1832. 111.. iH.'il. Iiid., 1841). N. v., 1M25. Ohio, IH.OO. Md., IHI6, MaHH., 1841, N. Y., 1828. I'a., 1861. I>. C, \h:,1. I'a., 1H04, " 1851, " 1862. N. Y., 1860, " 186H, MasH., 184U. Ct., 1844, Pa., 1863, Oliio, 1831. N. Y., 1845. D. C, 1869. MasH., is.-io. 1). C, 18,'-. I, Mo., 1859. N. Y., 1862, Mas<.s., 1810. " 1800, Mich., 1849, D. C, 1868. N. Y., 1859. Pa., 1S2.'-., " 1861. Ma.«B., 1858, 9.1,90, no, 210, 23R, 210, 305. :illO, 316, 422, 4J7, 1 1 1, 4 49, 4.'.4, 4M0, 600, 6ir., 618, bU, 629, 642, UOO, 048, 049, 059. 158, 103, 568. 4!I0. 119. 141. 173, 211, 187, 683, 042, 041. 217, 249, 3;i'.t, 421, 446 005,059, 083. 230, 333, 338, 34.S, 402, 454, 400, 670, 695, 030, 049. 351, 360. 121, 229, 279, 4C1, 104, 303, 308, 440, 400, 474, 099, 083. 140, 292, 312, 674. 103, 108, 600. 104, 150,102,170,211,214,222, 266, 010, 040. 432, 471. 207, 398. 170, 081, 044. VW.. ^v^v,^;^,, »»«^1 AAi. 'S ,'fl iK'i TAni.K OK CABKfl, A. IM ALl'lluil III VI, uuiikit, v^nil lurt:!!!- SI) 1 i'l I'AflM WHIU rOl'HUi 1U)ffpni, ^ilrii|w>in c 4 rtlntfhr, n. iMft " W'.iiHtworlU V. 3 W.hmI. M, MIn., l35,MiiM,, IMIT, Iluul t . Hull, 4 MoUmi, 117, Ulito, iHMt, 07, 1 tn, INM, 314, 347, OUJ, bHU. 341, 30-1, " Jiihiimin V, MS. MitM., IH40. ItiHiii'iiii, WilMin V. 1 Hiuti'iir, n, N. V, iHlft. " V, 4 How, till), Hiip.Ct. iHlft. IliiiixK, K\ \mrtf, MS (,Mi|. «'ii»), 1) (!, iNAi, lan, laa. UiuMurow r. lltiiitiiiKton, a Smi.l. H. (!. 'ift'J, N. Y., I«li», im. ItiitfK I'. Iliiint'ii, M.S (.\|i|>. Ctu), I). (.'., IHSS, IH)«. liiiKKU'N, NiolioU V, U iiiiy, 14ft, Cf.. IHOM, " I'rotity V. 1 Kliiry, BOH, Miinx, IH41. •t II y_ 10 ivt., 3:m, Hull I't , IH41 l« •• y. 2 Hlory, M>l», M.S. (A|.|.. Can), MikXN, IHI3. '* r Young, I). C, IHM, 11.1, 44§. nu«iioll, (Irny v. 1 Xiory. 11, MiiKN., In:ii). U|uii I'. UiKHlwin, U Huiiiii., 61 1, " lH:it», 1.11,194,473,600,631, 664, cot, ^ftiMIiT I'. If MlNon, Ht. .Iiilin I'. 1 (>ritiMii, HiiliMlniry, StijilieiiH v. H.iiiiui'l t'. Ili'rt(ur, Huudurx, Kx purto, " t'. I'lirnonii, Sun(I.TH..ii, IJ. S. Uoll Ti-1 Co., r. Bninlford, Wilnon v. HarKfUt v. (,'iirlur, " t'. I.nrncd, " t'. HlMjffUVO, Siivory t'. Louth, Htiwiii V. Uuild, n. ariirt, fl, M.>.,1«S4, MH., N. v., iH.'il, MS (App. Cm), II C, iMfift. •-'I llarl.. H. C, lua, N. Y., lM5tl, MS (App. I'im.), 1). C, 1801, ( Am '{('K, 'ns, J M.'-i CiiH.), I). C, \»M), I 3 Dimwiu., 184, N. Y., H64. 10 How., Of), fiiip.Ct., 1860. 11 Mo. I. Ui'p., Cil, Mima, IB.VS, a Curl., :uo, " lHr>.\ a " .'■..■..I, 11. r., iH.'..'j, M.'^. (App. Cim.), I). ("., 18.-.1I, 1 Uull., 483, MllHM., 1H13, U63. 110, itl, 320. ati7, :, 2 Opin., 62. 1H27, 420, 477 Suolcy, J'.'x parte, MS. (App. CuH.), D. 0., 1853, MO, 152, 18.5, 200, 300, 312, 42(5 4:i;t, 490, 496, 674. II «i II 11 " 1800, 003 " V. IJonn, 11 II " 1801, SI.-), 007. Ren)crt'8 Cnso, 1 Opin., 050, 1850, 211, 0.12. ScldcTi, Kx pnrto, MS. (App. ("as.), " 18fi|, 137, 610. " r. I'ringlo, 17 Harl). H. C, 468 N. Y., 1804, 12U. " .'Jiiiitli r. 1 Itlatdif., 476, " 1849. ficnnctt. Com. lus. Co. v. 37 I't'iin., 205, Pa.. 18C0. fet-rrfll 1'. Collins, 4 Uiutuhr., N. Y., 1857, 239, 310, 395, 467. " V. " MS., " 1H5H, 616, 618, 666. " Ciiiyon V. 1 lilatehf, 244, " 1817. " Rittpr V. 2 " 370, " 1862. Boymour, McCormiok v MS., " 1860. Il»yin*'"«r,» It7f Wliiivi-r, II ."•littw V. C HtoriMHti (• " S " w •*'liflrwo«l I Mhri'ovo I'. I Wiiiip* i-, j(, " V. " V OJ. " v.Mi " f. I'a " •'. Tl, " .'.Till I 'ad -. •'• Vol "•"'iimri, Hatfi JJil-lxo, Mi.||,„ BiMiy, ].•„„[„ , '• , '• II " V. » „., FootoL Silver, Stri.«t r\ SmipMoii, Kx ,,.[ V. l.'ut " V. sul " V. U'.f ;; •'• u-,is„J \\'il.»iOtl, .. " t*. Woo.iti S'zcr, Many ,,. " V. " ^}nU>H, .>fattlio^ ■:<'■"', S. K. s,.rl f^loat, ( i rover .fef m,' M.u.J,. (-0. Sloat V. I'attun f .1 *'■ ^ '3'fn[)to| ''""111, Jl. (! i.\\ V. Ltowniul TAIll.K OK CASKS, A. ftl ALTNAMmCAl. tiNDtll, WITH MrMKMOM TO fAIIM WHUIM rUUHD. • r,. iMBKHir, Mti^'onnlt'k v. • " I'. li ■• y tt y II " V, " fhnniKm, llrown t'. Sliiir|i Uillii I'll,, Hiiillh V. Hliiivir, llli'kii i>. .HlillWf I'. ('UO|K)r, "i lll.a.'hr, 340, :i iii'.iti'hr, aoii, III How, 4N0, 10 How, w, 'i» I low., fift, 3 llliili'hr b4A MM, |A|i|) Cita.), 1 V»l., 'JU-J, Hlwivvk, UtU V. MR, Hlwriimii II, Cliiim. Trana. Co., Ill Wmt,, \(IX HIinrwiiiHl I'. " WlUnii |.. " Wooilwtirth V, Slwrwimil I'. Mlii'rmim, ri|iri'i>\ii I' L'liitiMl Hutoa, Siikli** V. Uurtloii, MS (Aii|». Can), 1 lluktrlil'., t,M\, 8 Si.iry. 171. MS. (A|i|). Cm.), MS., 8 Dlatchr, 535, MS., N. V,. MM. " Hai. " l»A4. Hup.(;i., Iha:i, '• JUftil, " IH47. N. v.. IMftT. I). C, IHtll. Hii|i.Ct., IN33 Ohio, I Rao, Vt., IMftM, l>. I!., IHtll). N. v., IN50. MlkKM., IHU. IJ. r., IHIIK, I't.nmK., IH.'iK, N. Y., »H5«, .1 lUiiiflif., nis, 4 UlatuUr, 4 " 4 " " V illoii. Miiniir. Co., •• V. Miii'lioll, " V. I'.t.v Mall S. a Co., " I', 'I'liii I'ulla Co., " V. Tillfiton, " Wiiili. ,1 Mux. Rtonin I ,n ,, .,„ I'mk. Co., V. [10 How., 410, t', Viiun^N, 3 Itlati'lif, 'J0.1, Kllimnn, Hatiin v. :i Wiill., Jr., .SiUbi'i', .Mi'liiiM V. 4 MiiMiin, lOH, WiUhy, FiKitu V. I lllutciil'., 4 15, " V. 1 " fil'i, 1 •• 045, a " 2(10, 14 How., 'J I a, II II II " V. " " Kooto V. .^ilviT, Street V. Simpson, Kx piirto, " V. Lii'Mor, V. Mu.l lliv. U. U., " V. W'ilnoti, " \Vil.soa V. " " V. SlnRor V, Wiilmsioy, •' Wli'korstmiii v. " V. Wllnon, " Wllnon, V. " 1'. Woo.stor, Si/rr. Many v. " 1'. " .r., 4 \V. 1,. .lour, 40, 2 Story, lll.S, MS. (App. Cos.), >i 11 MS., 93A, 337, 34l,«a.1, Wi. •i\u, n\, 0(0, ttou. t)1, on, l-iM, 141, 301, 41)1, 44.\ 161V, 4U0, 004, 1113, dii, 1161, u&a. 100, 330, AlU. 307. I OH, 171, 4r>i>, llil, 101. :iHit, :i:ii, 21! I, &U8. " 1H37. N. J.. iH.ld. N. v., IH..7, " lH.'i7, ex., IHill, N. Y., IH37, Sup. Ct., IN50, N. Y.. IH.'.a, 303, 401, 073. I'll.. IHtll. MaNM.. IN25. N. Y., IHU). " iH.'iO " ih:.o. " IHOI. Biip.Ct., IH02, 24(1, :»J4, 601, n07, C!»3. 2:iH, 253,310, 337, 3UH, 433, 4H(). 073, 004. 172, 40H. 277, 3(13,473,0011, 013, 07 J 304, 1107. Oili). 0U8, 073. i i. >%*v M IH.-,, 240, 316, 405, 520, 022, 070, (I'.MI. 1H57, 251, 332, 070, 504. N. Y.. IH50. I'a.. iHlfi. l». C. IHtll, 163, 154, 103. I'a., ISIH. 220. Ohio, IM.-,.-., 107, 237, 310. .Slip. Ct., IH45 107, 323. La., IHIO. 8il).(;t., IH40 Mil., 1H59, 201, 6(15, 500, 505. I). C, IH50, N. v., 1S5H, 000. I). C., |H(JO. N. Y., IH57, 380. MasH., IHIO. Sup. Ct., IH5.1, 134, 210, 007, 090. Ala., 18(10. I). C, 18.J3. N. Y., l.%0. Pa., 181(1, 172, 408. 1 " 1852, 30.1, 000. " 184G, 058. Mas.*., 1843. I). C., I8(;0, 423, 4.S0. " 18.13, 254, 474. Muss., 1850, 155, 177, 180, 27.'), 300,371,437, ««*.• t^'^9^''^' m^ mm 484, 611, 020, 540, 003, 034. ,Ww«i^w ■.»ii--^- 62 TABLE OF CASES, A. Ilv ''•OOIH." IN ALl'UAUETICAL OUDGII, WITH REr£tt£.\0£S TU TAOKS WIIKRE FOUND. Smith V. Ely, 6 McLean, 7G, Ohio, 18»a, 350, 505, 608, 528, 040, 588 590, 592, 0J9, 071. 63C ii J. i> 15 riow., i:t7, Sup. ct., 1.S5; , 222, 347. " r. I'"lickcni?er, MS. (,\pp. Ca.M.), V. c, iHi;i, 138, 143, 288, 418, 027. " lliirdfHty i: a liid., J"J, Iml., 1851. " r. Iligifing, M3., N. Y., 1H50, 238, 309. It ■■• u (1 " 1857, 190, 239, 281, a;!7, 361,139, 601,512, 518,621, 539, 001, 4 '57, 020. " V. " It " 1859, 240, 039 (1 J. II II " 1800, 190. " r. Johnson, 4 Blatrh';, " 18.^8, 180, 379. " r. MiTPur, 4 W. I,. Jour., 49, Pn., 18 JO, 118, 252, 614, 018,625,602,060 " 0'l{k'llyr, MS. (Aj.p. Can.), 1). C, 1853. " i'. i'ourco, 2 McLean, 170, Ohio, 1840, 180, 334, 350, 35.5, 361. 436,442 46,5, 471, 499, 056,022. " r. ScMon, 1 Blatchf., 475, N.Y., 1849, 12.3. " r. Sharp Uiflo Co., 8 " 5-15, Ct., 1857, 400. Sniithson, Dalo v. 12 M,l). T^r, 2;!7, N. Y., I8C1. " iStownrt V. 1 1 niton, 119, " 1850. Sijowden. Millett v. 1 \V. L, Jour., 210, 1811. V. Noah, 1 iiopk. ch., an. N. Y., 1825, 347, 409, 494. " V. I'CL'CO, MS. (A pp. Cas.), I). C, 1801, 141, 149, 312. 418, 630,676. Bduo r. rainier, 28 Mo., 5:!!», Mo., 1859, 166. Bpnin r. (lainhjp, MS. (.\pi: Cas.), D. C, 1855, 277, 422. Sparkman c. iliggin.i. 1 Blatclif., I'O-), N. Y., 184G, 91, 144, 177, 301, 40/), 403, 479, 005. 442, " V. " 2 Blntohf., 29. " 1810, 100, 114, 172, 371, 403. Sjicar I'. Abbott, M:'. (.Vpp. ('•us.), D. C, 1859, 130, 289, 419, 028. " Amosk. Mfg. Co. ]'. 2 Sand. S. ('., 590, N. Y., 18.19. " r. iHw.iTt, MS. (.\i)p. Cas.), D. C, 1859, 98, 147, 148, 020. Sponc'o, Kiilil V. MS., N. Y., 1859. Spencer, H.x i)arto, MS. (App. Cas.), 1>. C, 1859, 136, 140. 8perry, Dlako r. 2 N. Y. L.Obs., 251 , Ct., 1843. Sjjragne, Kx parte. MS. (Ai)p. Cas., D. C, 1859, 624. Allen V. 1 lilatehl'., 5(i7, N. Y., 1850. '' Blauchnrd v. :j Sumn.. 279, Mass., 1838. II II ( 3 Snmn., 5;!5; 2 } Story, Kil, !• " 1839. " Stono V. 1 Story, 270, R. L, 18.(0. St. John r. Prentiss, MS., N. Y., 1853. StnalH, Thompson v. 15 Wend., 395, " 1836. Stanley v. Whipple, 2 McLean, 35, Ohio, 1839, 232, 279, 29.3, 308, 334, 466, 527, 686, 590, 622. 491, Slenrnos r. Barrett, 1 Mason, 153, Mass., 1810, 227, 282, 338, 491, 654, 695 V. 1 I'iek., -143, " 1823, 212, 279, 462, 507. " V. Davis, MS. (.\ pp. Cas.), D. C, 1859, 451. Stein V. Goddard, 1 McAUis., 82, Cal., 1856, 107, 112, 160. Stellman, Day i'. MS., Md., 1859. f?tepliens v. Caldwell, MS., Mass., 1860, 585, 075. V. Felt, 2 Blatchf., 37, N. Y., 1846, 232, 492, 664. " V. Salisbury, MS. (App. Cas.), 7). C, 1855, 145, 216, 258, 306, 427, 487, 512 Stei)honson r. Hoyt, a it " 1854, 145, 427. Stephens v. Cady, 14 IIow., 528, Sup. Ct., 1852, 170, 174, 208, 313, Stevens v. " 2 Curt., 200, R. L, 185-1, 101. " V. Gladding, 17 How., 447, Sup. Ct, 1854 101, 170, 174, 221, 262, 313, 057. 102. 641, II ^._ 11 2 Curt., 608, R. L, 1 856, " V. Head, 9 Verm., 174, Vt, 1837, 164, 202, 464, 652. " " V. 19 Wend., 411, N. Y., 1838. " ITovey v. 1 Wood. & Min., 290 , Mass., 184G. " V. 3 " 17, " 1846. Stewart r>. Smithson, 1 Hilton, 119, N. Y., 1850, 116, 376. Stiles, Parker v. 5 McLean, 44, Ohio, 1849. Slixnp.sou V. Bait. * Siis. R. R , 10 How., 329, Sup.Ct, 18,j0, 189. 502, 696. " V. Brooks, 3 Blatchf., 456, N. Y.. 1850. 219, 285. PUiL & Tr. R. R. v. 14 Pet, 44 j, Sup.Ct,18iO. Stiiiip.s( II Stokes V StoUey, : Stono, C] " V. " 1'. " W " AV Story V. U " V. D Stowo V. '1 Street v. Si Stron;,-, lii^ Struvo r. S( Stuart, Spei Stintevant ; Sullivan's C Siillivun, Bv " v.. Siiydam v. E Swan, Barst Taggort, Bat if ■ Tnlcott, McC\ Talmann, Ma| 5'atliam v. Lc " Lo rI " V. u Tntham v. Lol " V. Lof " ■"• . Taylor, Bakerl " t;. Car " V. " V. Teese v. Hunt| " V. Phelp The Falls Co., L ThoR^ashingAl Thistle, Berg i ' " V. U. iL Thomas, Ex pa " Pottle " V. Qui| " Stowe " ». WeJ TAHLE OF OASES, A. :,'.] IX ALI'HAIIKTK'AL OHDKll, WITH UKKKUKNCKM Ti) I'ACIKS WllEIUS FOUND. 2 Tiirt., 502, 1 Wall, ,lr., ICl, V. IlonerH, 4 UlaU'lif., V. West. ChoH. R. II., 4 How., ^80, SliuipHon I'. I'lmil, " t'. Tlio llnilromlB, Btokcs 1'. Lmidgrnir, Stolloy, Itlooiner v. " Brooks V. " Wilaou V, " " V. " " V, Stono, Clayton v. " V. Cailiin, " 1'. Sprngii(>, " Wooil\Torth V. " Wyeth V. Story V, llolcombo, " V. Dcrliy, Stowo V. ThoiniiS, Stroot V. Silvpr, Slrtrng, IliKK'i'S "• Stnivo I'. Sehwodlor, Stuart, Hpcar i). Stiirtovuiit )'. Grecnougli, .Sullivan's Oaso, Sullivau, Byass v. " V. lludflold, Suydatn v. Day, Swan, Burstow v. Tagport, Battin v. " " V. Tnlcott, McComiick v. Talmunu, Mason v. Tatham v. Lo Hoy, " Le Eoy v. " V. " " " V. Tatham v. Loring, " V. Lowber, " V. " Taylor, Baker v. " V. Carpenter, " V. " " V. " " V. " Tcese v. Huntington, " V. Phelps, 17 Barb., S. C, C08, 5 McLean, l.")H, 3 " 52:{, 4 " 272, i " 275, 6 " 1, 2 Paine, :iH2, 3 Mo. I., llop., .ICO, 1 yti.ry, 270, 3 " 741), 1 " 27:i, 4 McLean, 300, 4 " IGO, 2 Am. Law Reg., 210, Brijrhtlv, '.to, 4 lilackY., 182, 4 Blatcbf., MS. (App. Cas.), it it Opin.,(;ilp.'aKd.,lC8, 21 How. Pr., 50, 1 Paine, 441, 2 Blatchf, 20, MS. (App. Caa.), Ma.ss., ISIjj, Pa., 1847, Ct., ISiV.», Sup. Ct., 1845, N.Y., 185.1, Ohio, 1850. " 1845. " 1847. " 1847. " 1849. N.Y., I8l!8. •' 1850, R. I., 1840, Ma.s8., 1845. " IS 10, Ohio, 1847, " 18 IG, Pa., 1853, " 1840, Ind., 18;!(!. N. Y., 1857, D. C, 185U. " 1800, 1818, N. Y., 1800. " 1825, " 184G, D. C, 18G0. 470, 584, 075. 220, 2;i:!, 234, 493, 004. 118, 119, 2t;9, 000. 175, 192, 243, 3':i, 327, V.fiS, 150, 005, 013, (!18, 023, 057, 0G2, 07 J. 273,375, 084, 089. C84, 688. 484, 554, 692. 09, 104, 193, 210, 3C0, 41 1', 03", 041. 377. 174,170,208,300, 47G, 010, Oil. 091. 194, 350, 354, 447, 528, 597. 214, 379, G43. 98, MS, G03. 505, 012. 130, 2G.3, 353, 379, 389, 398.495, 504, 509, 513, 520, G32, 05G. Ill, 159, 1G3, 402, 499, 587, CC4. T. 2 Wall , Jr., 101, 17 How., 74, 20 " 402, 1 Blatchf., 529, MS., 14 How., 150, 2 Blatchf., 474, 22 How., 132, 5 N. Y. L. Obs., 207, 2 Blatphf., 49, 4 Blatchf., 2 Blatchf., 82, 11 Paige, 293, 3 Storv, 458, 2 Wood. & Min., 1, 2 Sand. Ch., 603, 23 How., 2, 1 McAllia., 17, Pa., 1851. Sup Ct., 1854. " 1857. II. I., 1850. N. Y., 1849, Sup. Ct, 1852. N. Y., 1852, Sup. Ct., 1859. Mass., 1845, N. Y., 1847, " 1857, " 1848. " 1844, Ma.ss., 1844, " 1840, N. Y., 184G, Sup. Ct., 1859, Cal., 1855, The Falls Co., Sickles v. Tlie Washing Mac. Co. v. Thistle, Berg v. " V. U. States, Thomas, E.x parte, " Pottle V. " V. Quintard, " Stowe V. " ». Weeks, 4 Blatchf. Earle, .S Wall . Jr., MS. (App. Caa.), Dev. Rep., 130, MS. (App. Cas.), 12 Conn., 565, 5 Duer, 80, 2 Amer.L. Reg., 210, 2 Paine, 92, Ct., 18G1. Pa., 18G1, D. C, 1800. Ct.Clms., 1856, D. C, 1860, Ct., 1838. N. Y., 1855, Pa., 1853. N. Y., 1827, 128, 183, 244, 371, 45G, 489, 531 592. 230, 200, 270, 335, 43S, 456, 179 552, 553. 128, 157, 627. 128, 158, 283, 618. 102, 398. 115, 129, 409, 687. 115,129, 37' no. 116, 129. 129, 272, 410, 683, 687. 220, 345. 110, 226, 261, 310, 337, 422, A?A, 449, 480, 515, 618, 520, 629, 035, 681. 164. 114, 692. 186. 204, 281. 379, 381, 389, 445, 453, 520, 680. ^Ljy*^- . '^^: «!:^' ill % ,iy*«.*^ *m 9lb ■-■- 1-- '^\^. <^^ ifi?35 .^-i-1^' m •^4 y^^wy jijT XVwi^WWv., W;^to»t--'^V. II I|Ih, if M «t TAIJLE OF CASES, A. IN AM'HAUKTU '\h OltDKIl, WITH IIKPKIIK.VCKS TO PAdKS WIIERK FOUND. Tlioiiison V. WinclioHter, ir» I'irk., 2 It, Mass., 1W37, 100, 373, 481 Tlioiiipsim V. Ilaifjlit, lU.S.I,..I.mr.,95,5G3,N. V.. 1H22, 228, 59G, G03 V. .StaalH, 15 Wend., .IDS, " 183G, 481, 499. Tliorno, Joiic'H v. 1 N. y. L. ( »1.H., 408 " 1843. ThiuTmcr, Hill v. ]:i Ind., .151, Ind, 185!). Tilliimii, Mx |)iirto, M.S. (A PI). Cus.), 1). C, IHCO, 625. TillcHoii. Sicklos V. 4 Watc d".. N. v., 1857. Todd, HickiR'll V. 6 McLean, 230, Ohio, 1851. TKiiilinsoii V. Diitlol, M.S., N. Y,, 1857, 227, 229, 230, 686. Toiijiiiii /■. N'at. Hank Noto Co , MS., " 1.8G1, 395. Torrcy, Tracy v. 2 lilatchf., 275, " 1851. Tracy r. Torroy, 2 " 275, " 1851, 101, 335,350, 367, 397, 538. Treuclwell a. liladon, 4 Wash, 703, Pa., 1827, 93, 144, 248, 279, 29G, 301, 3 313, 44,5, 507, 592, 597, 650 " V. Fox, M.S. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1869, 2G1, 476. Trfittcr, Maroy v. 1. It " 18(iO. Troylron&Nail Fac. v. Corning, 1 lUatclif., 'lOT, N.Y., 1849, 123, 29.3, 294, 306. V. " 14 How., 1U3, Sup. Ct,, 1852 125, 1G3, 4G2, 465. M '.15 " 451, " 1853 " r.Odiorno.n " 72, " 1854, 12G. Tryon r. "Whito, Pot. C. C, !)(5, N. J., 181.5, 495, 585, 590. TucltcT, iicoch V. M.S. (App. Cus.), 1). C, 1800, Titcl, Tyler v. Crn., :!24, Sup Ct., 1810 Turner v. Johnson, 2 Oa. C. C, 287, D. C, 1822, 200, 338, 526. " Ilildrcathv. IT 111., 184, 111, 1855. " Meyers v. 17 " 17a, " 1-55. " "Wiison V, 7 Law Hep., 527, Md., 184,5. K 11 4 How., 712, Sup.Ct.. 1845 Tylor V. Doval, 1 Codo Rep., 30, La., 1848, 18.3, 421, 471, 489, 528, OIL " r. llydo, 2 lilatdif., 308, N. v., 1851, 245, 295, 694. " V. Tuol, G Cra., 324, Sup. Ct., 1810 110, 159, G52. Tyson v. Kankin, M.S. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1853, 417. Twomey, Hyatt v. lDev.iBat.Eq.,315 • IJ , N. Car., 1836. > Undcrliill, Wood v. 5 now., 1, Sup.Ct., 1846. Underwood, llowo v. MS., Mass., 1854. Uuiou lUib. Co., Day v. 3 Blatchf., 488, N. Y., 185G. " " V. 20 How., 21G, Sup. Ct., 1857. " Judson & Goodvear v. 4 Blatchf., N. Y., 1857. Union iUil). Co., N. E. Car Sjijr. Co. V. 4 " " 1857. United States, King v. 10 Mo. L. Rep., C31 CtChns., 1857 . " Slireeve v. MS., " 1859. " Thistle ('. Dev. Rep., 130, " 1856. BeU Tel. Co. V. Sanderson, - 3 Blatchf., 184, V. N. T., 1854, 317, 397. Vanco t;. Campbell, MS., Ohio, 1859, 190, 246, 311, 435, ' 157, 516. " V. " MS., " 18G0, 28L Van Drcssor, Gibson v. 1 Blatchf., 532, N. Y., 1850. Van llook v. Pendleton, I " 187, " 184G, .130, 332, 383, 391, 558. " V. " 2 " 85, " 1848, 286, 287. " V. Scuddor, Cited 3 McLean, j 438; 3 Story, 132, j " 1843, 117, 319, 567. • Van lugen, Livingston v. 1 Paine, 45, " 1811. " " V. 9 John., 507, " 1812. Vannani v. Paine, 1 Hiirriug., Go, Del., 1832, 499. Van -Xostrand, Douglierty v. 1 Iloff. Ch., G8, N. Y., 1839. \i V. Ostrand r. Reed, 1 Wend., 42 1. " 182S, 200, 694. Vougliau r. Porter, ]<; Venn., 2(!G, Vt., 1844, 121, 203. Vaught, Bloomer v. Cited 1 Blatchi:, 529, La., 1850. Wado V. " V. Wal(!li, R Walker v. Walton V. Ward, Jta Warner, 1 " V. Washburn Washinjf J) Wash. A A Co. V. Sic Watorby Bi Brk. Brs. Waterman, Watson V. I M'ayno v. AV Webb, Culv( " V. Pc Weed, Wood ^Veeks, Thou AVoiss, Kvani AVellnian v. 1 Wells, Fetrid Weniplo, Pittj AV'estchester 1 AVothorell, Bj " 11 Wotmoro v. sl Wheailey, K{( Wheaton v. Wheeler Boai Whipple V. Ill " V. Mif " V. rJ " Stanl White, CoUina " Tryon] Whitman, Pitll Whitney, Blan " V. Cil Whitney v. En Whittemoro r. Wickershaff v.\ Wickersham v.\ Wilbur V. Beecl Wilder v. Ada TABLE OF CASES, A. 53 IN AU'IIABKTIOAL OKIiKIl, WITH UKFEUENCKS TO I'AOKS WIIKIIK FOUND. ■■<9V$^: w. Wodo V. Matthews, " V. " ■Wnlcli, Ex parte, WiilkiT V. Forbes, Walton V. Crawley, Ward, Iloborts v. "Warner, Ulan. (iun-Stk. Fac. v. " V. Goodyear, "Washburn v. Gould, 6 Opin., 'J20, MS. (App. Caa.), 3 Blatcbf., 4 JO, 4 McLean, 665, 1 Blatchf., 258, MS. (App. CaH.), 3 Story, 122, 1849, I). C, 1 850, " 1H57, " 1801, N. Y., 1850, Mich., 184D. Ct., 1848. D. C, 184G, Mass., 1844, 151, l.i6, 42;j. 149, in. 417. 139, 142, 143, 332. 290, 429, 452. 161, 274, 412, 085, C89. "Washing; Mach. Co. v. Earlo, Wash. & Alex., Steam Pack. ) Co. V. Sickles, f "Watorby Brs. Co. v. N. Y. & ' Brk. Urs. Co.. \ Waterniuu, Cochrane v, AVatsou V. Bladen, Wayne v. AViiiter, Wobb, Culver v. " V. Powers, Po., 1861, Sup.Ct., 1850, 3 "Wall, Jr., 10 How., 419, MS., MS. (App. Caa.), 4 Wash., 580, 6 McLean, 344, 12Coim., 441, 2 Wood. & Mill., 497, Mass., 1847, l.-iS, 18.1, 28.1, 238, 297, 442, 447, 548. Ill, 257,! :i21, 40(i, 657, 104, 106, 118,131, 159, 107, 2n0, 232, 282, 3o;i, ;!05, 3i;t, 310, :tii>, 360,389,424,412, 447, 401, 491, 517,620,557, 658, 052, 601, 004, 082. 404, 6U1, 682. 124, 407. N. Y., 1858, 239, 310, 369, 457, 516, 619, 533 D. C, 1841. Pa., 1820, Ohio, 1853, Ct., 1838. Weed, "Woodworth v. Weeks, Thomas v. Weiss, Evans v. "Wellinan v. Blood, Wells, Fetridj;o v. Weinplo, Pitts v. Westchester R. R., Stimpson v. WcthoreU, Burrows v. " Jones V. Wetmoro v. Scovillo, Will aloy, Keene v. Wheaton v, Peters, Wheeler Beach v. Whipple V. Hutchinson, " V. Middlesex Co., " V. Renton, " Stanley v. White, Collins v. " Tryon v. Whitman, Pitts v. Whitney, Blanchard v. " V. Carter, "WTiitney v. Emmett, 1 Blatchf., 165, 2 Paine, 92, 2 Wash., 342, MS. (App. Cas.), 13 How. Pr., 385, 6 McLean, 558, 4 How., 380, MS. (App. Cus.), 11 u 3 Edw. Ch., 615, 9 Am. L. Reg., 33, 8 Pot., 591, 24 Penn., 212, 4 Blatchf., MS., MS. (App. Cas.), 2 McLean, 35, MS. (App. Cas.), Pet., C. C, 9G, 2 Story, 009, 3 Blatchf., 307, Fes. on Pat., 2ded., 130, Bald., 303, 334, 479, 520, 596, 680. 145. 99, 162, 194, 252, 359, 378, 416, 645. N. Y., 1846. " 1827. Pa., 1809. I). C, 1866, 444, 4Z0. N. Y., 1857. lU., 1855. Sup. Ct., 1845. D. C, 1854. " 1855 N. Y., 1842, 262, 458. Pa., 1800. Sup. Ct., 1834, Pa., 1855. N. Y., 1858, Mass., 1859, 1). C, 1854, Ohio, 1839. D. C, 1860. N. J., 1815. Mo., 1843. N. Y., 1858. I Geo., 1809, 591, 636. 103, 150, 208, 213, 215, 220, 26C. 475, 020, 638, 640. 172, 17.3, 381,409. 370, 524, 634. 135. "WTiittemoro v. Cutter, III 1 Gall., 429, 478, Pa., 1831, Mass., 1813, 1813, WickershafT v. Jonea, Wickcrsham v. Singer, Wilbur V. Beceher, Wilder v. Adama, 2 Whar. Dig., 413, Pa., 1848. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859, 2 Blatchf., 132, N. Y., 1850, 2 Wood. & Min., 329, Mass., 1846, 130, 1-14, 150, 182, 224, 231, 248, 252, 279, 304, 3 IS, 339, 350, 354, 420, 431, 45,-., 471, 483, 480, 499, 604, 509, 517, 519, 521,520 543, 604, 032, 047, 050, 054, 682. 104, 110, 117, 159, 102, 190, 219, 2:!0, 241, 338, 312, 365, 370, 435, 495, 030, 651, 052, 053, 650. 92, 90, 97, 105, 109, 181, 230, 259, 349, 355, 429, 444, 454, 470, 525, 588, 093. 308, 514. 98, 147, 148, 153. 189, 235, 309, 302, 433, 532. 203, 244, 407. i^>tn^} i^~.J. sr''i '.1 -rn i : !- sp™ W^ \ ALU y^ii^^^^ so TABLK OF CASKS, A. '•w* IN ALIMIAUKTICAI. OIlDKIt, WITH IIKKKIIENCKH TO P AOES WlltiltK rOUKD. Wildorv. Ciayler, 1 Ulatelif., 511, N. Y., 1849, 100. u V. " 1 " f.97, " 1H50, 347. t( (InyliT V. 10 I low., 477, Sup. Ct., 1850 , it V. MiKJormick, 2 Itlatchf., :!1, N. v., 1810, lit, 151,192,409, 614, 691. 687, 690, Wiloa, lIuU V. 2 " 194, " 1851, Williiims V. Ilioka, 2 Venn., .'10, Vt., 1829, 200. It 1!. JdliiiHon, 2 Uo8w., I, N. Y., 18,-.7, 413, 080, 090. 11 V. WilHoii, 4 Sand. Ch., 379, 1 8.;.'' 348. ii Wood V, (liljiin, r>17. Pa., 1834. Wilson V. Barmiin, 1 Wall., Jr., ;!42, " 1819, 151, 3.30,494. ti V. " 1 " :m7, " 1849, 384, 390, 614. it V. " 8 How., 258, tSup. (U., 1819 ')')•) """. ii V. Ciirtiiis, 2 W. L. il.mr., 511, ha., 1815, 402. it V. .) Olios, 3 lilalchr., 227, N. Y., 1H.-.4, 337, 434, 614. ti Mi'Kiill V. 6 Llackr., 260, lud., 18 12. ;( V. Poller, MS, N. \"., 1800. tl V. Uosscdu, 1 lllalchr., 3, " 1845. ' tt V. 4 Uow., 040, Sup. Ct., 1845 Ill, 118,159, 192, 193, 323, 324, 320, 658, 570, 004, 007. 320, yn, G13, 057, It V. Sanilfonl, 10 How., 99, " 18.-.0 131, 578, 038, COO, 09G •• V. Slu'i-iiiaii, 1 Ulalchi;, 53(1, N. Y., 1850, 109, 380, 384, 407, 581 it Simiisou V. 4 How., 70!i, iSup.Ct., 1845 u V. 9 '• 109, " 1849, 292, 323, 320, 577, II Siiitj'or V. M.S., N. Y., 1 858, tt V. " " MS. (.\pp. Cas.), I). C, 1800, 158, 454, CIS, G21. tt ■V. iStoUoy, 4 MoLoaii, 272, Oliio, 1847, 271, 400. It V. " 4 " 275, " 1817, 97, 384, 402, 405, 677. It V. " 5 " 1, " 1819, 405, 407. II V. Tumor, 7 Law Ron., 529, Wd., 18 1.5, .■i2(t, 322, C67. 11 V. " 4 How., 712, Sup. Ct., 1815, 323. ,1 ■Williams v. 4 .Sand. Ch., 379, N. Y., 18 Ki. • It Wriffiit V. 11 llicli. J-aw.,141, i^.Car., 1857, • 1 Wooihvorth v. 4 How., 712, Sup. Ct., 1815. ■\ViUon i: Kailroatl3, 1 Wall.. Jr., 192, P.a., 1817, 344, GC5. • t V. " 2 AVliar. IHk., 410, " 1848, 257, 504. ■\Vinan3 v. Host. A Prov. R. R. , 2 .Story, 412, Mas.«., 181.3, 254, 488, 489, 53.5. 11 V. Danlbrtli, MS., N. Y.. 1800, 315, 42.3, 429, 451, 553, 554, G03. II V. Di'uineud, 15 How., 330, Sup. Ct., 1853, 335, 330, 303, 307, 450, 518, 523, 535, 051. V. NowCaa..feFr.R.R.,Citod 2 Blatclif., 294,Md., 1850. V. N. Y. k. E. R. R., 21 How., 88, Sup. Ct., 1858, 258, 318, 487, 519, 530, G82. .. N.Y.& Ear. R. R., j '^i'-^^'l!:/"-''-' '''^'' \ N. Y., 1855, { ^''' -''' ^O^- ^»''. 't^^, 443, 410, V. Seho. & Troy R. R., 2 Blatchf., 279, " York & Md. R. R., v. ^VincllCster, Thomson v. Wiufr, Bev. Rub. Co. v. A\'inkley, Odioruo v. Winslow, Ex parte, Winsor, Jillson r. " Kendall v. Winter, AV.iyno v. Wintermuto v. Htimphrey, " V. Redington, 17 How., 30. 19 Piek., 214, MS. (App. Cas.), 2 (iall., 51, Ua. (App. Cas.), 21 How., 322, 6 MoLcan, 344, 10 W. L. Jour., 52, MS., 18 How. Pr., 64, Wolfe r. Gourard, Wood & Brun(laj,'e, Ex parte, 9 Wheat., 003, " V. Underhill, 5 How., 1, " V. Williiuns, Gilpin, 517, Woodcock V. Parker, 1 Gall., 438, Wooden, Peterson v. 3 McLean, 248, \Voodrufl', Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.)- " Binna v. 4 WasL, 48, 51.5, COO. 1851, 132, 145, 258, 425, 433, 4G9, 490, 529, 535, Gil, 0G8. .Sup. Ct., 1854. Ma.ss., 1837. I). C, 1800. MasH., 1814. D. C, 1850, 139, 141, 309, 317. " 1850. Sup. Ct., 1858. Ohio, 1855. " 1851, 124. " 1850, 238, 355, 3G8, 422, 434, 439, 450. 472, 480, 518, 524, 575, 594, 035 N. Y., 1859, G8G. Sup. Ct., 1824, 228, 6U. " 1840, 195, 518, 520, 528, 533. Pa., 1834, 228, 655, 692. Mass., 1813, 105, 333, 349, 424, 444, 595. Ohio, 1843. D. C, 1859, 261,475. Pa., 1821. Yoarsloy v. I York & Jfd. Yuuug V. Coll " Colt v\ " V. iriif :; iiuiid ' SickJel TAHLE OF CASES, A. 87 IN AU'IIAUKTIOAL OUDKIt, Willi UKI'KUUNCKB TO I'AUICH WUGUK rOUND. ■\Voo(lriin" .t (;<)l)b, Kx pnitp, MS. (A pp. CiiH.), I). C, IfiOO, 178. Voo?or to bore Muakots, Axlo-UosuH, A. Case V. iforoy, TomliiiHon v. IJattol, Morton's Caso, Sargoaut v. liarncd, " V. 8(.>a(?riivo, " V. Carlor, Pottibono I'. Derringer, Roberts V. Warti, Muttliows V. Skates, 1 N, Ilamp., 347, MS., 8 Opin. Atty. Gon., 2C9, 2 Curt., 310, 2 " 553, 11 Mo. Law Rep., C51, 4 Wasli., 215, 4 McLean, 506, MS., N. n., 18 IS. N. Y., 1S57. 185G. Mass., 1S55. R. L, 18.J5. Maws., 1858 Pa., 1818. Mich., 1813 Ala., 18U0. i Babbitt's Composition, Baker, redecting, Bank Uills, printing. Bark Mill, Bodste.ids, Boll Telegraph, Boazolo, burning, Billiard-Table Cushions, Bilge Lovers, for Ships, Biscuit Machine, Blast, for Furnaces, K II II Boat Frames, Boats, propelling. Boilers, heating, Bonnet Frames, J Boot Cramp, BrtotH, Manuf. of. Bottles, Screw-Caps for, Bran Duster, II II Brass Kettles, Roberts v. "Ward, Dobson V. Campbell, Kueass v. Schuylkill Bank, Wilbur V. Ucechor, Berg V. Thistle, Boyd V. Brown, " V. McAlpine, Herbert v. Ailams, Nourse's Case, Crohoro v. Norton, U. S. Boll Tel. Co. v. Sanderson, Drake v. Cuuningliani, Brunswick v. Ilolzalb, Thomas v. Weeks, See Cracker Machine, Bell V. Daniels, " V. McCullogh, DotmoM V. Hooves, Raymond L., Ex parte, Isaacs V. Cooper, Bell V. Phillips, Kidd V. Sponce, Eames v. Cook, Bedford v. Hunt, Mitchell V. Barclay, Carr v. Rico, " V. " ( Phelps, Dodge & Co. v. Brown ) Bros., J Waterbury Brass Co. v. N. / Y. & Brooklyn Brass Co., j 4 McLean, 566, 1 Sumn., 319, * 4 Wash., 9, lOG, 2 Blatchf., 132, MS. (App. Cas.), 3 McLean, 295, 3 " 427, 4 Mason, 15, 1 Opin. Atty. Gen., MS., 3 Blatchf., UM, MS. (App. Cas.), MS,, 2 Paine, 92, MS., MS., 4 Amer. L. Jour., N. MS. (App. Cas.), 4 Wash., 259, MS., MS., MS., 1 Mason, 302, MS., 4 Blatchf., 4 " 18 How. Pr., 7, MS., Mich., 1819. Me., 1833. Pa., 1820. N. Y., 1850. D. C, 1800. Ohio, 1843. " 1841. Mass., 1825. 576, 1822. N. Y., 1853. «' 1854. J). C, 1855. Oh^o, is.'in. N. Y., 1827. Ohio, 1858. " 1858. S., 188, Pa., 1851. D. C, 1801. Pa., 1821. Ohio, 1858. N. Y., 1859. Mass., 1860. " 1817. N. Y., 1860, " 1856. " 1858. " 1859. " 1858 ■•'■ V^ *•»»'» •iii/l ■*».m'A Cfe^' lijT ^^^ UK' Uiii'ki't Miicliino, Liirriii^ Miu.'liitio, TAULK OF CASKS, H. AIIUAN'OCII AH TO HUlUKCr UATIKU. II 11 11 II M 11 U II II II 11 II II II DuttouH, Dosixnf " Kyuu of, for, Cnpstnn, Caiiiil-l.ock Onto, 11 II II II Cnntion, Rifled, Ciinis, Cotton and 'Wool, Curding Muchiiio, Carpi'tH, wonvinp, Cai'riiifjfo llnikcH, " CollJ)lill(^, Cartridge, Metallic, " .S'iiinlcHH, ('astern for liiilstuadfl, Ccilinjfs, iiaiiiliiij.', ("Iiilk'd Uollors, (.'Udtiug, Cliiiiiiicy l''lue8, CllU|-|lK, " Atmospheric, Cldoroform, use of, Cider MUl, It II Cistcnifl, Clover Seed, hulling, Coul, Screeiniig, Mi'Pimald'H ('mho, Wood r. I'liderhil!, Hall ('. WIN'ri, MfCay I'. Iliirr, SpraKui', Kx parte, KdwardH V. liicliardii, Ciitidi'll i: I'arkhnrHt, rurkliiirHt t'. Kinsman, " V, " V. " V. " V. " f. " KiiiMtiinn I'. Pnrkhiirot, Wliippli' r. MiddleHox ('o., ]looili I', (iart'lly, Goodyear i'. MatlliewH, C. Walker v. Porhes, lliidiTtli ('. Heath, Si'i'Icy, Kx parte, l.aidley i: JaineH, \\ liiii itiore i: Cutter, Carroll r. (lauihril, L)yHon, Kx j)arte, " r. (innilirii, See also lliinimj .Wdchines. Thompson v. Ilaight, ],aro\ve, V.x parte, Ileusskneeht V. Claypool, Maymird, Kx parte, rrender, " Ulake r. Sperry, lilis^^ ('. N'eguM, MeClurg r. Kingsland, UodKO r. Card, Dunliar v, Marden, Uurlew V. (J'Niel, Morton's Case, Head V. Stevens, Stevens J). Head, Darst ('. Itrockway, Wood ('. Williams, Uuttin V. Clayton, " V. Tatrgort, " V. " Hattiii V. Sillinmn, Heilner i'. Battin, Anthr, in making Glass, Yearsley i'. Brookdeld, Bidl v. i'ratt, Tryon v. White, MatlliewH V. Skates, Eoberts v. Ward, Combs, making, Composition for Boxes, Ac, Copyright — American Dispensatory, Adams' Latin (Jranminr, Amor. First Class Book, Book-keeping, system of, II II Commercial Advertiser, Comstock's Re{)orts, Cowcn'a Reports, E\v . V. Coxe, (iray v. Russell, Pierpont v. Fowlo, Barllelt v. Crittenden, " V. " Clayton v. Stone, Little V. Gould, " V. " " V. Hall, Backus V. Gould, 1 Opin. Atty. QoD., 170, C liow., I, •i Jllalrhf., 104, (i r.i.ii,, 117, MS. (App. CuH.), Wright, 5'.»(1, MS. (.\pp. CiiH.), '2 llalHt., Ch., COO, H N. Y. Leg. (JbH., 7i, •2 Blatehf., 72, •i " 70, 2 " 78, 1 " 4Ha, IH How., '280, MS.. 1 lllatchf., 247, 1 I'uino, 300, 181'.'. Hup. Ct., IH'IO. N. Y., 1801. I 'a.. 1H47. I). C, 1850. Ohio, |h:i4. 1). C., 1847. N. J., " N. Y., " " 1848. II It II II " 1840. Sup. Ct, |H.',5. Mass., \h;,\). N. Y., 1817. Ct., 1814. MS. (App. Cm.), 1 Gal!., 429, 478, MS. (Ajip. Cas.), 1 I^ 8. L. .Tour., OC, CC:), MS. (.\pp. CttH.), 1 llla<'k, 431, MS. (App. Cas.), It It 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 251, 8 Mass., 4(i, 1 How., 202, MS., i:{ N. Hamp., .111, MS. (App. Cos.), 8 Opin. Atty. (ien., 2C9, 19 Weml., 411, Verm., 174, 11 Ohio, 4(!2, Gil|)in, 517, 2 Whart. Dig., 409, 2 Wall., ,rr., 101, 17 How,, 74, 3 Wall., Jr., 27 I'enn., 617, MS. (App. Cas.), 1 Conn., :M2, I'et., C. C, 96, MS., 4 McLean, 566, 4 Wnsh., 487, 1 Story, 11, 2 W. .Ik M., 23, 4 McLean, 300, 5 " 32, 2 Paine, 382, 2 Blatehf., 165, 2 " 362, 18 How., 290, 1 " 798, D. C, 18CI. " 1841. " i860. II II Mass., 18];!. 1). (J., \Hr,ft. " I860. " 1861. N. Y., 1822. D. C, 1860. Sup. Ct., IHCJ, D. ('., 1857. " 1861. Ct.fl 84. •!. Mass., 1811. Sup. Ct., 1843. Ohio. 1860. N. H., 1842 ])- v., 1853. 1 856. N Y.. 1838. Vt., 1837. Ohio, 1842. I'a., 1h:)4. " 1848, " 1851. Sup.tJt., 1854. Pa., 1861. Pn.. 1856. D. C, 1853. Ct., 1815. N. J., 1815. Ala., I860. Mich., 1840. Pa., 1824. Mass., 1839. " 1846. Ohio, 1817. " 1840. N. Y.,1828. " 1851. " 1852. Sup. Ct., 1855. Sup.Ct., 184S Oopjrriffht- Pnbdll'i Drnina— Carpel] Oi'toroi •I II Surgeon « iHviglil'n /'eelarat'i KincrHori'* Federal Ci Flora's Iiii (iutm's |)> Ilistory of MoMIl'op. I .F/ij)i»i l';\| Johnson's Letters, pr. II 11 II II Lifeof Hiel. " of Was Mmjh and C Strait.s, .M New Vor Map, Uho Nantucke; Marvatt's Maria M( Music— Aletliia W Bohemian Cot li.-nc Old Arm Serious Fi New lOra, Newsjjaper, Preshy. Cliii Sacred Mom Story's KiMi •I » Tnclo Tom'^ Wendell's i{ Wheatou's 1 Wol>sler's 1- CmiSheller. Cotton, carding Cotton, cleauin spinnin Gin, II II II II II Press, " Waddir Cracker Machir Cultivators. Tool 99$9t.Y. TMU.K OF CASKS, II. 61 ARMANOKI) AN TO RUIURCT MATI'KH. |iiiliiiir>« Arithiiuak', Prruim — Curpi'iiior of Koiiun, OcUtrutJti, flurtfooti of PrirlN, Dwinliirt TlicoloKy, I)iK'luriil'iic)riiiili'|M'tnloiicr KriicrHDu'x Ariiliiiii'iio, Fuilcriil CiiU'iilulor, I'liiruV liiti'tprt'trr, (iiiiiii'h I*miiii'm. Moilicino, lliHtory "if ilin World, lliiint'(i|i. I>(iii). I'liyHiciim, .Tiipiiii l'!x|i<'iliti()n, Jiiiin^on'M Koportil, LolUTH, privuto, Llfoofirii'kH, " of Wii'^liinffton, Miip'* nnd Cliiirta— Slniils. Miu^kiimw, New York, Map, Ulioili' rsluiiil, M II 11 II II Nantuckpt Shonl, Mill yatl's N'oveU, Mmi'ui Monk, Music — Ali'tliia Waltz, Itolii'iiiiaii ( iirl, Col KcMi'atli tho llill, OM Ann (Jliair, .Serious Family i'olka, New I'lrii, Newspaper, I'resliy. (."Inircli Case, Sacred Mountaiim, Story's Kquity Juna., II ii II Uncle Tom's Cabin, Wondcirs l{eportfl, Wiioaton's lluporta, Wolister's Kng. Gram., r )rn Sheller, Cotton, cardinjf. Cotton, elcaniuf,', " spinning, " Gin, " Press, " Wadding, Craokor Machine, Cultivators. I. " Teeth of, DuIkiII'm Cnup, Joiii"* I'. TiioriH', Ki"'nn I'. WliiMilloj, It iiertu I'. Mi'yur*, Uo^rrM /'. .ll'Wl'tt, Jorn'H r, 'I'jiiirnc, l)wi^'ill i: Applrtonii, ',Hliins r. Woodriiir, Kiiii'rHiiri r. havira, Nii'hoU ('. Uii^({li>s, Wl'l)l) c. I'llWlTH, Cooper I', (lutin, Stnive I'. Sriiwcldor, rulln V. Dcrliv, Heine r. Appletona, (liiiild I'. Hanks, DonlH 1'. I.I' CliTk, Iloyt V. MeKon/.ie, Wet more r. Scovillo, ■\Voolscy r. .Iiiild, Kyri' /'. I Mallei', I>"e Witt V. Itrooks, Fulxum t;. MiirHli, RloI)ert'H Case, Hmitli I'. Jolinsoii, Stevens V. Cady, " V. " " V. Gladding, " V. " lUnnt V. Patten, Carey v. Collier, Monk V. Ilarpor, Forrctt r. At will, Atwill r. Forri'tt, Millett I'. Snowden, Ueed V. Carnsi, Jollio V. .laiiues, Hell 1'. Loeke, Hnowdcn v. Noah, Miller V. MeKlroy, Haker v. Taylor, Story's Exrs. v. Derby, " '• Iloleombo, Rtowo V. Thomas, Uai'kus r. (ioidd, Wlieaton ?'. Peters, Hudson v. Patten, McDowall r. Meredith, See liitnihij Mm-hines. Nesmith v. Calvert, Rouse, Kx i)arto. Carver v. Ilydo, " V. IJraint. Manuf. Co., Fultz, Kx parte, Tylor V. Deval, Anon., Novins V. Johnson, Treadwell v. Ijladon, Watson t'. " Chamberlain v. Ganson, Traeey i'. Torrey, Sandera v. Parsons, 1 Opin,. Atty. Con., C33, IR'il 1 X. V. I,og. Olia., 408, N. Y., 1843. Ainer. Law Iti-x . :i:i. Pa., 18(10. l:t Mo. Law Ui'p., . liMl, MasM., |8I>0. VI a:io, " |«5H. 1 N. Y. r.eg. Oh«., 4(18, N.Y„ 1843. 1 tt tt II 105, " 1843. ■1 Wasli., JR, • Pa., 1821. ;t Storv. 7<18, MasH., 1846. 3 1IIIV, II. 'i, Ct., 1808. a w." .V M., ini. MaHH., 1847. 4 I). Moil , riUt, Ky., 1844. 4 Illati'hf., N. Y., 1867. f) MeLean, :128, Ohio, 18:>2. 4 ])lat-'bi., N. Y., 1857. 8 Wind,, mi, N. Y., 1H32. 1 Martin, •<\)1, La., 181 1. 3 llarb. Cli., Win, N. Y., 1848 :i i;dw. (Jh., 615, " 1842. •1 Pucr, .'171), " 1855. 22 How. Pr., 206, " 18(;i. MS., " I8i;i. 2 Story, 100, MoHS., 1841. 7 Opin. Atty. Gon. C66, 1850. 4 Itl.itehf., N.Y., 1858. 14 How., 528, Hnp. Ct., 1852 2 Cnrt., 2(10, 11. L, 1854. 17 How., 117, 8ni).Ct., 1851. 2 ('nrl., ,'., 311, Pa., 1839. 1 w. k jr., n4, Mass., 1815. MS. (App. (^as.). D. C, 1854. 10 Pet., 57:t, Sup. Ct., 1842 2 Story, 4:12, Mas.«<., 1843. MS. (App.Cas.), I). C, 1853. I Code Rep., 30, La., 1818. 3 West. Law Jour. ,144, N. Y., 1845. 3 Hlatehf., 80, N.Y., 1853. 4 Wash, 703, Pa., 1827. 4 " 580, " 182G. 2 Blatohf., 279, N. Y., 1851. 2 " 275, II • MS. (App. Caa.), D. 0., 1859, »- ^- ^ iULLTnTi ;-^ t ^ ^■k r'***,/. ■-s^^* HI 1^ ii» »rf " • -Ww^**' '^'^'■^U'.'H'i i-cjriS' ■^^7W ^ '^Wi^w^^"'' (177 CW^Wyw « H f^« '"ki,. TAFirr, OF CASES, n. iiiii ANHAN• ir. How., i:i7, Pup. Ct., I.Mft.!. II II •• V, Downlnff, M.><„ Mass., 1H50. II II " t'. .Seidell, 1 Dlatcl.C, 476, N. Y., iMlij. Envelope a, Arnold v. Totter, MS. (App. CuH.), D. C, |H(;i). II Orr, Kx parto, It II " iHri!/ Krnsor, IlickH V. Hhavor, II M " 1801. KxImuBt, variable, Wiuaus V. Dunt'ortli, F. Mullikcn t'. Lfttchcin, MS., N. Y., IHOO. F(>ntliprs, ronovatlng, 7 niaokf., ino. Ind., IHIl, KilcH, flitting. Morrill ('. WortliiiiKlon, 14 Mass., :i80. Muss., 1817. l''iro-Ariii8, Colt V. YoutiK, 2 HIatclif., 471, N. Y., IH52. II II Bliaw 1', Cooprr, 7 I'et., 'i!)2. Sup. ('( , \s:\x II II YoiinK V. Colt, 2 lllatchf., :i73, N. Y., Lsr,..i, 11 II Allen V. Hlunt, 3 Htory, 1V1, Mass., iMi,"). II II 11 II 2 Wood, k Min., 121, Mass., ISK). " " Rifled Cannon, Laidloy v. James, MH. (App. Cns.), D. C, iMJo. " " Lockafor, See hicks. Firo Eiipincfl, Fi.rk V. Little, 3 Wash., 100, Pa., 181.1. a II Mayor, Ac, v. Ransom, 23 How., 487, Sup. Ct., 18CC II II RanHoni v. ifayor, Ac., M.S., N. Y., IH.VI. Firo Kscapo, Dederiok, Kx i)artc, MS. (App. Cas.), P. c, \m>. Flour, Macliinory, Evans v. Chamhers, 2 Wash,, 125, Pa., 1H07. U II " V, Elaton, Pet., 0. (;., 322, " l.SIC. <* " " V. " 3 Wheat., 454, Sup. Ct 181 S, « u " V. " 3 W ish., 443, Pa., ISIH * 1* " V. " 7 Wheat., \\M, Sup.Ct., 1822, H (1 " V. Ilettiek, 3 Wash., 408, Pa., 18LH. " '* " V. " 7 WiM'.it., 453, Sup.Ct,, 1822. U U " V. Jordan, 1 Rrock., 248, Va., iMLi. ^ M M " V. " Cra., 199, iSup. Ct, 1815. a M " V. Kromer, Pet., C. C, 215, Pa., isu;. It It " 1'. Weiss, 2 Wash.. 342, " 1809. Fluids, ovaporatin;j. ITopkins v. T.owifl, MS. (App. Cas.), 1). C, 1859. Forks, Sluice, Teeao t'. I'iiolfis, 1 McAllis., 17, 48, Cal., 1«55. 11 11 " V. Huntington, 23 How., 2, Sup.Ct., 1859 Furnaces, Blast of, Bell V. Daniels, MS., Ohio, 1.S58. II It " f. MeCullogh, MS., " 1858. i> II Dotmold V. Hooves, 4 Ain.L.Jonr.,N.S., 18R Pa.. 1851. « Iron, Whipplo V. Ronton, MS. (App. Cas.), l\ C, 1854 Furnaces, Reverberating, Geiger v. Cook, 3 W. 4 Serg., 2GC, Pa., 1842. Kiwlhio A\ Ottii, " Ihjrno " Ue^uj, " StoVPH (.Wnnn Kurn Putiipn, (JlnsH Knohi " I'lttto, (Jraiu-Cleaii; " nin«, 'iriit Mills, (;ii««c, Stonr Cuim, Autfer " (Jartrl.i " Primer Poo alHo /■•( Catta Porefifl I'rinting, Ifaif Oil, IfornoHs) for Lf Sa 1 1 arrows, ilarvoHtoi's, II II II II II II II 11 II II II II lints. ^ " Mirrors for, ^ny Kako, Heatinjr Water 1 |'<'mi), dressing, Itoaoy, Artificia: i'l'rizontal Wate Horological Crnd ■ffr' iyr«ii« TArsi.K OF CASKS, n. M AHRANitKli AH TO SUMMT MATTia KuMblo Alloy, BfMt* CMC, 7 Opin. Attr 0«n., 133, Has. ■1 '• MvtraoB k Ulgortl, Kx i>*r(«, O. MoDoiiirall f. Togf(, Ua. (A|ip. Cue ), D. C, UaS. r.iid, 3 Hoiw., 317, N. T., Ifl.'S. lliirnrr, Widi'h, Kx >arto, Mti. (A|)p Con.), 1). 0,, 1857. ■I K<'t(ulator, Tlorrintt v. .iIIIukwoII, II II " iHlll. " HtovrH, H|N», CAM* KiinbH, Sooly't Caio, Wliilmy t'. Kmmf>tt, 2 Opln. Attj. Hon., 62, " 1H27. llnld., 30.1, ro„ im:u. " riuto, (li'<'f'iii)ii({li 1). Clark, MH. (A pp. Ci«,), I>. (1„ 1833. ()ri\iu('lL-uiui)g .llanhino, I'litlli' r. 'riminiM, I'J Coiiii., Mi, ct, i8;iH. „ II II t^uiuU'rij 1'. Iio^nii, :i W ill., Jr., I'a., IHC.L II 11 It Hiiiilli 1'. 1' lii'ki'tiKPr, MS- (A pp. CvLtX 1). C, 1HJ3. " Hin«, MarMJi, Kx parti<, II ii " iMdO. CrUt Millx, KitikhIIo |i, (Iraiit, •I Itlai'kf., 57, Tnd., 18;i.-,. (luiiKf, Hloam, Furloy v. Nat. Htm. flajj. Co., MS, (A pp. CaH.X I) C, 1850. (liiiiH, AiiniT to l)or»», I'ctlllioiio V. PiTrliiKor, 4 Wash., 'Ut,, I'tt., 181H. " (Jiirtriilno, uifitalUo, Mfiviuuil, Kx t>itrt», MS (.\|iri, Can.), I). C, 1807. " rrimiTH, " Smith V. Sluirp, Uillu Co., 3 UlHtehr., 54S, Ct, " Si'o aUo yue-Arm». Ciitu I'orctift I'Utcs, for priutlng, Kiugilujr V. llorriut, MS. (App. Can.), D.O., 1804. Hair Oil, Bnrry t'. ClirlniKli, 12 Law nop., .307, N. Y., Ifl»9. llarn«>«s* for Looms, Koiiijall V. WiiKsor, 21 llnw., :\'il, Hup.Ct., I85H " 8»«ldlo8, North V. Jiiiu'M, 4 lllatchf.. N. Y., 1857 lliirrowH, Woo'lrufV, j'lx parte, MS. (App. Ca*.), I). C, 185!). llnrveslo'H, Hall, Kx parto, 11 II •^ IHCO II Com. Imi. Co. )'. Soniictt, 37 Penn., 205, Ta., IHCO. II Uavin, Kx parto, MS. (App. CaM.), 1), C., 1850. 11 Kinory, 14 »1 (4 Ii II Ifus.si-y V. M(<"ormifik, M8„ 111,1859. II MeCwiiiick v. .liTomi', 3 Ulatelif., 480, N.Y.I 850. It " V. Kotrimm, MH. (App Can.), D. C, 1853. It " V. Many, (1 McLcuu, 0:tU, 111., 1855. It " V. Soymour, MS., K. Y., 1850. It It J, II 2 lllatchf., 240, " 1851. It It „| It MS., 1( 41 tt " V. " 3 Ulntohf., '209, " 1851. 11 " V. Talcott, 20 How., 402, Snp.Ct., i8:.7. II Nourso V. Allen, MS., N. v., 1858. t< llujrff V. Haines, M.S. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1855. It SoUlun. Kx parte, 11 i< " IHOl. It Soymoi.r v. McCormick, Ifi now., 480, Sup. Ct., 1853. .i " V. " 10 How., 1)6, " 1856. Hats, Burr V. Cowpertliwnito, 4 Jtlat<-hf., Ot, 1858. " ('owpcrtliw.'iito r.U'l Aiiuumiiilor, M N fljrdniuUo PDwtr, TAMLK OK l!ASKH, II. AMMDiii >' nrli>, I'viiimkIi r. ln»tu|fU«t rtit* p. Hull, II ,,_ 11 F. Ill<'hnri|««n, Cri'lmri' r Nurtixi, J U.K. IK'll 'iVI.fo.v. i emoii, riinlpi I', Mnjrcr, f. Koifl- } lit III, SOT, n " iM, IT " nu, MH. (A|.,», (?»•.), 4 WikIi., fiUM, •J IVI., I 5 lll.il.tif, 2iO. 8 llliitilif., 'iOl, 1 1 Mo, Uw lt«p., 0)0, MR, 3 itiiiti'lir, Ii4, \:> How., mo, IIH. (Ai>|>, t'ui.X U'o, ciitllriir, Wfitlli I'. Stoiif, I Hiory, 27.1, " niovvlivjf, Ki'iniMT, !•:« piirlo, M.^, (A pp. Caa), " Plr. lii>r«, RtiriitMon I'. ItoKi'm, •1 Illntihl'., Imlla-rubbor, 11.* , Kiili. Co, ii. Wlnsf, M.S. (A|.|). Cim.), II CJ«fll'« 1'. lloHl. Kill. i\\, Ti How., 'in, i« ' 1'. Iliivwanl, 20 " aoH, M ' t: N,'K. CarMpK.Co . M.^,, U C iitit,r. I(ii'>' I'o. r. Am. KInit. } MS., rioih Co., U Vny i: lloHt, Ilolt.t'o., MR, •1 it V. " M.S., It 11 V. " (1 Mo. Law Ilc'p., .120, II II V. try, M.S., II II V lywiinl, •.'0 How., 20.M, II II V. tlooilvi'iir, M»^ II II v. lliirt', 1* II k Jiulson V. " 4 lllutchf.. II II II II II II II II II Goodyear v. Ilislioji, v. lloiinio, V. ('liallec, V. Day, V. " V. " V. " V. " .V Tonp. R. Co., V. liiiiiliar, t'. Mcllurnoy, V. riicipM, " V. HiiilroiiilM, " J'. I'liiou Uiib. Co., ITartxhorn v. l)ay, Juilsoii V. Iiiiy, M.'ircy ('. Trollcr, JIi'Huriicy ('. (iooilyoar, j I'oppfiiliciiscn r. N. V. 0. ) ( r. Comb Co., i " V. " " V. " Snydam v. Da}', Warner v. (Jooilycar, •2m, 2(18, sen, M.S., M.S., 2 Wall, .Tr., 2S3, 3 Itlutchr., .149, 3 Wall., Jr., 3 Walilif., :rj, 3 " 01. •2 Wall., Jr., 35C, M.S, 1!» How., 211, M.S.. M.S (Ajip. Can.), 1 1 Cu>'li., 5C0, 4 lilatchr., MR, M.S., 2 lilatdif., 20, MS. (Aj.p. Caa.), III., IIM. " iitaa " iHftft. I>. ('.. iKliO. I'M., \h'i!t. Hup. Ct., |M3!», N. v., I»\\. " IH57. N. Y., iHiVj. To., J«ri7. N. Y., lHr..T " IH.VI. " iMftl. " )n6!l. Biip.Ct., lh,-,7. N. J., 1N50. M. r., 1H63. " IH.VI. " 116. I,n., iHiio. N. v., is'.l. " \Ht,l). " IN.VJ. M(l.. 1«50. N. v.. iH.'.rt. Hup. Ct., 1H,')7. N. v., IH.-.7. " IHflO. " IH.^J. " m,:k " IH.IO. N. J., iHno. " IHB'J. " 1H52. N. Y., IH.^i! N. J., lKt!l. N. Y., iH.Vi " 18,13 N. J., isn'.'. N. Y. 18i17. Sup.Ct., is.')i). N. Y., 1851, 1>. C, IHCQ MnsH., isr,3. N. Y., ISS.i. " 1S.<3. " 1S.J. " IMK). D. c, iciie. rmlla riilitH liiillii-riil>l)< titk, rriiitii ** I. " Wriiif, ln«tilntlii|f I Iron liriilif,. " M.inurr M ., Irwsfiiiur K.I .ritila, Irori, Juiirtial lir Fil.., '."Vfl.H, .Spirit, I'tMidiiliiiL Lovor for raisin J Miip.s, r '.iKfitniiig itodH, J. I mo. Kilii, f'Ock.q for noor.q, JaniiH- " Firo-AriJ II ^ " and I'rii lnor, iuiilft>riil>lMr, TAIII.K OK CASh-H, H. AWUMaHO At TO MnHlOT HATniK. W«riH'r r OiHHtjrxnr, WiMh, Miu'. ('iK V. K4rl«, Wad* ¥. MMllhawi, " V. '* Minipw)!), Ki iHtrto, \Vlii|i|ili< I', lliiti'liiiinon, ItiMitKi'ii I' Kitiiowrn, H(ivi>rv I'. l,«n., MH (.\|>|i. Tua.), ■J niai.l.r, .17, MM (.Vi>|i, I'im), 4 lltntol,!, 1 VV'iixli . ItlH, MM (App, CiM,), 3)0, n. r., III44. I'n. INttl. h. . v., \m\. N Y , IHM. IV, IMU4. |i, C, IH&9 I ft ^•;i "J' .rnlls, Iron, .luiirtial lloxoii, JmoIm, Kx imrto, Mittllii'WN t' Mkatnii, IlultorU V. Wnrtt, MK. (App. Cm.), MM, 4 Mclicun, O0A, n. 0, inao. ,\ljk, IHIIO. Mull, IH48. A] Z^ >wr^: ^V»4| Knltllnit r/x)m, Kiiivi'i* I'or llurveiitora, KiiciliH, |hK)r, Marximll v. Nfo«^ Itulclik'.iiN r. ilri'Otiwool, V. MR. (App, nan), II It 4 M<'I.<'iii), \M, 11 llow, 21!^ D. 0., IMS. " 11154. Olilo, IM4«. Hiip.Ct., 1850. lAOtoni IrmtrutnenU, DiiviiUon 1'. r.i>wl«, M8. (App. Cai.), D. C, 185«. I,u(li(<«' DroiWfH, Doii^luMM V. iiliikititon, II II " 1861). l^trii|m. Doll V. Mill, II II " 1H64. It Dint/,, K.x piirti', II II " IHOO. ti " V. Hiirtihani, II II " 1850. II Ilanli'iity v. Smith, :i Ind , 39, IimL, 1851. D. C.. 1H54, II NIcholH )i. Ilnrrin, MM. (App. Cas.), It BtophoDN V. t'lililwoll. MM., Mass., IHUO. Loud ri^ (Jiiy I'. CorniOl, 1 lllutohf., 500, N. Y„ I.S49. Lo Hoy V. Tatham, 14 Mow., 150, Bup.Ct., 1H52. 11 II " V. " 22 " 132, 18.-)9. II II Perry v. (Jornoll, MS. (,\pp. Cas.), D. 0., 1847 II II Biildi'n V. Prini^lo, 17 Hurl)., S. (!., 468, N. v., 1864. II II Tttllmiii V. Im Koy, 2 Hlutcht'., 474, " 1862. II II " V. " MS,, " 1840. 11 II " V. Tiorin^, 5 N. Y. Leg. Ol)H., 257, " 1846. II II " V. Lowlwr, a liliitolif., 4!), " 1847. II II " V, " 4 niatohf.. " 1857. Lonthor, oiittinff into Solos, Foster V. Mooro, 1 Curt., 270, Mass., 1852. " ii|ilittin^, Woodcofk t\ I'urkor, 1 (Jail, 4:17, " 1HI3. " tuiiwlug. DavlH V. Ik'll, H N. Ilamp, 600, N. H., 1837. U'ltor Kile, Smith, II. L,, V.x parlo, MS. (App. Cas.), P. C, 1853. Lovt'lrt, Spirit, Oibbord v. Ha^ot, 4 match f.. Ct., 18.'.7 " I'lMiiiiiluni, Chnndlor v. I,ai|i|, M8, (Aj)p. Cas.), 1). C, 1857. Lovor for niisinn \V'i'inlitH, ("iiyoii r. SiTii'll, 1 matcht:, 244, N. Y., 18.»7. " Sliiim, llilKo, Thomnn v. Wcuks, 2 ruino, 92, " 1827. I.ightnlug Hods, (Jimiimiui, S. I>, Kx parte, MS, (App. Cub.), D. C, 1858. It II KtcariiH «'. DaviH, II II '• 1869. I.imo-Kllu, Soely, Kx parte. II II " 1853. II II ilill V. Thiicrmer, 13 Ind., 351, Ind., 1859, liOcks for Doors, Dnll V. Murray, lOPonn., HI, Pa., I.SIS. " Jonus-focod, Adams v. Jdiies, 3 Wall, Jr., " 185!). II II LivinjfHton v. Jones, 3 " 1801. " Firo-Arms, Alien V. Bluut, 3 Story, 742, Miiss., 1846. 11 II .1 „ II 1 Blatchf., 480, N. Y., 1849. II 11 " V. Sprague, 1 " 667, " 1850. *' and Primer, 6 Smith V. Sharp liifle Co., 3 " 545, Ct., 1S&7. (Hrl ^ "•' s^M ' K "IHUl\ y\ SAL ^w^w^ ''iLiiii ;cvwwv 00 TABLE OF CASES, B. >*»f n ^^4 '^jin "^ liiii,.,; '' I ' ^^'tiii^'ii Si;'; AUIUNOED AS TO 8UIUE0T UaTTKR. Locomotivrs, rcmoviiif? LocotnolivoH, vuriublo ex- liaii.st of, Looms, Lottorics, drawing, MiK'liino Ctirdfl, MiU'liiiH'ry, driving, Marine CainclH, MaU'lios, friction, li 11 II II II II II II II II • Simiison V. Mad Riv. R. R., ■ Wiiians v, Dnnfortli, Medicines, Jforcantilo Acpoimts, Millstones, holding, ^^oss, treating ns Hair, Moiiliiings, planing. Mowing MacliineH, Muskets, Auger to bore. l\v('r t'. liieli, lorliusli V. iiradford, t'. ("odk, Stone V. Spraguo, Wright V. Wilson, Vunuuiii V. I'uino, in. ■Well man i'. Blood, Tiioinas, Kx parte, AVIuslow, " I3rookH V. Uyam, " V. " Byum V. BiiUard, " V. Kddy, " V. Fnrr, Ryan v. (loodwin, Bacon Case, Brown v. Wright, Couistock ('. Moore, Davis V. Kentlall, Jordan i: Overseers of Poor, Perkins' Case, Thomson v. Stnats, " V. 'Winchostor, Dixon. Ex i)arto, Ilovt, Ks. parte, Smith r. I'caree, Mus. Ilairf'o. i'.Amcr. IluirCo, 8errell v. Collins, See l/arvcali-rii. Pettibono v. Derringer, G McLean, 603, MS., I Mote, 180, II Mo. Law Rop., 47 1, 10 " " 604, 1 Story, 270, 11 Rich. Law, Ml, 1 llarrington, 66, MS. (App. Cas.), 1 Gtory, ;100, 2 Story, 625, 563, 1 Curt., 100, 2 Blatchf., 521, 1 Curt., 2ti0, 3 Simin., 514, 2 Opin. Atty. Gon., 109, 17 Ark., 9, 18 How. Pr., 421, 2 R. 1., 5U0, 4 llannn., 294, 1 Opin. Atty. Gen., 64, 15 Wend., 395, H) Pick., 2 H, MS. (App. Cas.), 2 McLean, 170, ,4 Blatclif., 4. '< 4 Wu.sh., 215, lit Xails, Brad, cutting, Sawin v. Guild, " cutting and heading, Gray v. James, II II II ii p II " " " Odiorno v. Ames. Xail Fac, " " " " V. Winklcy, Nuts, Metallic, Cole, Ex parte. Oil Can, " Cloth, II II " Patent Sperm, Omnibus Stop, Paint, metallic, Palm-leaf, for Beds, Paper, making, 11 a " folding, Pattern Rollers, Pavements, Arthur, Ex parte, Sparkman v. Iliggins , " V. " Thomas v. (Juintard, Stephenson v. lloyt, P. Maule, Ex parte, Howe V. Abbott, Ames V. Howard, Knight V. Guvit, Appletons v. Chambers, Hutchinson v. Meyers, Smith, B. C, Ex parte. 1 Gall., 485, Pet., C. C, 394, " 47G, 2 Mason, 28, 2 Gall., 51, MS. (App. Cas.), MS. (Anp. Cas.), 1 Blatck, 205, 2 " 29, 5 Duel, 80, MS. (App. Cas.), Oliivi, 1855. N. Y., 1800. Mass., 1840. 1H56. 1857. R. L, 1840. K. Car., 1 857. Dol., 1832. D. C, 1856. " 18G0. " 1850. Mass., 1840. " 1843. " 1852. Vt,, 1853. Mas.s., 1852. " 1839. 1828. Ark., lasr.. N. Y., 1800. R. I., 1H50. Ohio, 1831. 170(!. N. Y., 183G. Mass., 1837. D. C, 18(>0. " 18(10. Ohio, 1840. N. Y., 1858. " 1857. Pa., 1818. Mass., 1813. Pa., 1817. " 1817. Mass., 1819. " 1814. D. C, 1867. D. C, 1860. N. Y., 1846 II 11 " 1855. D. C, 1854. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1853. 2 Story, 199, Mass., 1842, 1 Sumn., 482, " 1833. Mir. Pat. Office, 94, 131, Pa., 1840. MS. (App. Cos.), D. C, 1860. " " " 1861. " " 1860 K It II II li II M II II II 11 11 ■ I 11 11 II 11 II 11 II 11 II 11 II II 11 11 II II II II 11 II 11 II II II 11 II II II II 11 II II II II II II II TABLE OF CASES, B. 07 ARIIANHKI) AH TO HUIUKCT MATrKIl. Puvotiicnfs . Tillitinn, Kx jmrto, l'.';ri,'iMK M aclilno, Stiirti'vant i'. (irconougli, IVll iilitl I' .'lu'il Oaso, llawlcy i: Itagloy, " 11 II HicliartlMdii V. Ilifks, I'didiiliiin, Lovol, C'liaiiilltT V. I.atlil, l'iM-fH. l'"ry .V Si'cly, Kx parli>, I'liiH, paporinf?, AiiuT. Pill Co. I'.Oak'vl. I'inOo I'istol, St'ir-cocking, Allen V. Hliiiit, I'ilcliors, lIcMiunl, V.x parte, I'laning Mncliinca, Daniard v. (liliHiin, II II Itiekiiell V. ToiUl, II II lllooiiior V. McQiiewnn, 11 II " V. Sloiley, II II " t'. VauKlit, II II Brooks I'. UieknoU, II II " V. " II II " V. " II II " V. " II II " V. FiHko, II II II (,_ 11 II II " V. Stdlloy, II II Urown t'. Siiniinoii, II • 1 Peaii V. Ma.Koii, II II Uibsoii V. Dariuirit, II II " V. IkHts, II II " V. Cook, II II "v. Gill'ord, II II " 1'. Harris, II 1! " V. Hicliarils, II ■ 1 " 1'. Van Dressar, II II " J'. AVoodworth, 11 II Lippiiicott V. Kelly, 11 II I;ivin^:ston r. Woodwortli, ■I II Mnsoii V. Tallnian, •; II Oleotl V. Hawkins, II II Itioli ('. Hoti'likiss, 11 11 Hitler V. Serrell, II 11 Simp.son r. \Vilson, 11 II Sloat V. Patten, II II " V. " 11 II " V. riynipton. 11 II Smith V. Merwr, II II Van Hook v. Pendleton, 11 II " V. " 11 II " V. Scnddor, II II ■Washburn v. Oould, 11 11 Wilson V. Barnuui, 11 II " V. " II II " 1'. " II II " V. Curtiua, II II " t;, Ilosscau, 11 II " V. " II II " V. Sandford, 11 (1 " V, iSherman, II II " V. Sinipson, II II " V. Stolley, II II " V. " II II " V. " 11 II " V. Turner, II II " V. " 11 II ■Woodwortli V. Barber, II II " V, Cheover, It it " V. Cook, MS. (App. Cas.), II II MS,, MS. (A pp. Cas.), II II MS., MS. (App. Cas.), .,:i Hlaiehl.. 1!I0, 2 ^"-.0,1. i .Min., 121, ^l-': )p. Cas.), ( !'■ tii'.O. •> M, 1.V jn, r.'A i ii.-.v, ri:iit, B .'leiiiaii, 158, 1 Hlntclil"., 6'21), a McLean, '250, V " 4;«2, 4 •' C-t, 4 " 70, MS., 15 H(,\v., 212, a McLean, 523, 20 How., 55, 20 " 198, 1 lilatchf., ;t88, 1 " ic:i, 2 " HI, 1 " 529, 1 " 1C7, Pat. OfT. Di(?., No. 376, 1 Itlatdif., 5:12, 8 PaiKO, i:!2, 1 AVcst. Law Jour, 513, 15 How., 516, 1 lilatchf., 529, 2 Am. L.Jour.,N.S., 319, 1(! (;onn., 409, 2 Jilatchf., 379, 4 How., 709, 4 West. Law Jour., 49, j 24 Jour. Fr. Inst., 25, [ ( 3d Ser., ) 4 West. Law Jour., 49, 4 " " 49, 1 Blatchf., 187, 2 " 85 ( Cited, 3 McLean, 438 ; ) / 3 Story, 132, ) 2 Story, 122, 1 Wall., Jr., 342, 1 " 347, 8 ITow., 258, 2 West. Law Jour., 511, 1 Watchf., 3, 4 How., G46, 10 " 99 1 Blatchf., 536, 9 How., 109, 4 McLepu, 272, 4 " 275, 5 " 1, 7 Law Rep., 529, 4 How., 712, 1 Blatchf., 529 (cited), 3 Story, 171, 2 Blatchf., 151, P. (\, I SCO. " l.sco. N. Y., IhOr.. D. C, is.vi. " 1857. N. Y., ISdl, ]). C., l.s,-)!). CI., IH.-.L Mass., 1846. i). C, lM.-,7. Sup. Ct.. 1818. Ohio, 1M,^1. Sup. Ct., 18.-.2. Ohio, IS.-.O, La., IH.-)0. Oliio, 1843. " ISN. " 1 ,s 15. " 1815. Mass., 1851. Sii)). Ct.. i8:(3. Oliio, 181.K Sup. Ct., 1 857 " 18,^.7 N. Y., IS 18. " isiii. " 1 S50. " 1S5(). " 1S4(!. " 1845. " LSaO. " 1810. Pa., 1844. Sup. Ct., 1853. P. I., lS.-)0. "Wis, 1849. Ct., 1811. N. Y., 1852. Slip. Ct., 1815. Pa., 1840. " 18,-- 2. " 181(i. " 184t;. N. Y., 1S4«. " 1848. " 1843. Mass.. 1:^44, Pa., 181!). " 1849. Sup.Ct., 1849. La., 184.-). N. Y., 184r.. Sup.Ct.. 1815. " 1850. N. Y., 1 850. Sup. CI., 1849. Ohio, 1847. " 1847. " 1849. Md., 1845. Sup.Ct., 1SJ5 Mo., 18,-)0. Mass., 1844. N. Y., 1851. m^ ^Vwv. "**».;;.•;;; K'*'W*iir-.'- - i i ii^- 1 '■^^^^■d}^: 'I[ 'f«|i-.-jJN,. (if ; ''ittf 4^ »■■ ■!, TABLE OF CASES, B. AIIBANIIKD AS TO SUDJKCT MATTKIl. riMiiirifj Miichiiic.'", Wood worth v. Curtis, '> W. fi M., 52), Mass., 1847. U 44 " V. " 1 Hlatclif., 529 (cited), " 1850. II 41 " V. I'ld'vards, 3 W. it M., 120, " 1847. II II " V. II nil. 1 " 248, 389, " 184(5. II II " V. l{ojforB, 3 " 135, " 1H47. 14 41 " V. iSliennun, 3 Story, 171, " 1844. 41 41 V " V. Stone, 3 " 749, " 1845. 14 II « „. .1 1 Wood, .t Min., 389, •' 184<;. 41 11 •* V. Weed, 1 Blatehf., 1C5, N. Y., 184G. II II " V. Wilson, 4 How., 712, Sup. Ci. 1815. Plouglis, Coleman v. Lienor, MS., Ohio, is,-i9. II Davis V. Palmer, 2 Brock., 298, Va., 1827. u " V. Mi'Cormick, 2 " 298, " 1.H27. II Oglo V. Ege, 4 Wash., 684, Pa., 182G. II Prouty V. llupjfles, 1 Story, 508, Mass., 1841. II " V. " 2 " 199, " 1842. 44 II y II IG Pet., 336, Sup.Ct., 1842, Pottery, Manuir. of, Linton, Kx parte, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1 800. PowclJr Mills, Sanders, " 41 44 " 18G1. Printing I'rcss, I5al)coek v. DeKcner, 44 11 " 1859. II 14 Peach V. Tiieker, 44 II " IHGO. 14 44 lluggles V. Young, MS.," " " 1853. " from Gutta-porcha, Kingsley v. Ilerriet, MS.," " " 1854. Propellers, Aiken, Kx parte. II II " 1850. 44 Crooker, " II II " 1850. II Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatehf., 1, N. Y., 1815. II Hogg V. ?;merHon, G How., 437, Sup.Ct., 1847. II " V. " 11 " 587, 1850. II Tyson v. Rankin, MS. (App. Cas.), P. C, 1853. Puddle Balls, rolling, Corning v. Burden, MS.. N. Y.. 1850. 41 II " V. " 15 How., 451, Sup. Ct., 1853. Pumps, Atkinson v. Boardman, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1847. 11 " V. " MS., N. Y., 1861. II Chatlield & Dutchor, Ex parte MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859. II Lowell V. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182, Mass., 1817. II McCluro V. JetTiey, 8 Ind., 79, Ind., 185G. II Mowry v. Barber, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1858. u Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 690, Mass., 1841. R. Rails for Railroads, Cushman, W. M. C, Ex parte, " " O'Reilly v. Smith, ," " Stimpson v. Bal. &, Sus., R. R., Railroads, turning Curves on, Phil, k Tr. R. R. v. Stimpson, " " Stimpson v. West Clies. R. R., " " " V. Railroads, " Cars & Carriages, Cooper v. Matthews, " " York Ct., 1850. 1840. 1845. Pa., U7. " ] !2. Sup. Ci., 1854. Md., 1850. N. Y., 1851. ■ " 1855. Sup.Ct, 1858 " 1853 Ct, 1858. Mass., 1843. D. C, 1855. " 1860. " 1860. " 1850. N. T., 1848. Mass., 1S49. Sup. Ct, 1853. Railroi Roapit Rockiii Saddles, Salt, ma; Safes, Ir II II II II II II 11 II Sash Fast " and: Saw, Circii ll 44 " Mills Saw Set, Screws, ll Screw Nuts Scythe Swa iSeed Drills, Seed Sower, Sewing Mac II 1 II , 11 1 II 1 II 1 II II II II II II II II II II Sewing Silk, II .Shingle MachiJ II II " II " II " II Ship's Timbers! ••^i««»H, TABLE OF CASES, B. 69 AKRANaED AS TO SUBJECT UATTEn. Riiilroud Switch, KoapiiiK MuchinoB, Uocking ChairB, Spain V. Oamblo, 800 Ilarvestera. Boan V. Siuullwood, MS. (App. Cub.), 2 Story, 408, D. C, 1855. Mass., 1843. 8. SudOlcs, Dixon V. Moyor, 4 Wash., 68, Pa., 1821. II Thistle V. U. States, Dov. Rep., CtClms., 18B6. II Williuina v. Hicks, 2 Verm., 36, Vt., 1829. Salt, manufacturo of, Anon., 5 Opin. Atty. Gen., 101, 1814. Safes, Iron, Delano v. Scott, Gilpin, 489, Pa., 1H34. U 11 Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How., 477, Sup. Ct., 1850 II II Bich V. Lippincott, 2G Jour. Fr. Inst., (3d Sor.), ^^' Pa., 1853. II II Wilder v. Adams, 2 W. & M., 329, Mass., 1816. II II " V. Gayler, IBlatchf., 511, N. Y., 18 19. II II " V. '• 1 " 697, " 1850. 41 II " V. McCormick, 2 " 31, " 1846. Sasli Fiistonor, Palmer v. Allen, MS., " 1854. " and Blind Fastener, Elmer i'. Pennol, 4 Maine, 430, Mo., 1855. Saw, Circular, Lee V. Ulandy, MS, Ohio, 1860. It » Oir V. Uurrall, 15 Ala., 378, Ala., 1849. ' " Mills, Nye V. Raymond, 16 111., 153, 111., 1854. i " " Circular, Page V. Ferry, MS., Mich., 1857. II 11 II Phillips V. I'ago, 24 How., 159, Sup.Ct., 1860 Saw Sot, Aiken v. Bemis, 3 W. & M., 348, Ma.ss., 1847. ► Screws, N. K. Screw Co. v. Slonn, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1853. 14 Pierson v. Eagle Screw Co., 3 Story, 402, R. I., 1844. Screw Nuts, Carter v. Carter, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1855. Scythe Swaths, Alden v. Dewey, 1 Story, 336, Mass., H40. Seed Drills, Cressler v Custer, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1853 Seed Sower, Cahoon v. Ring, MS., Me., 1859. Sowing Machines, Berry, Ex parte. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1860. II II Barstow v. Swan, t4 it " 1860. li ti ICUithorpe v. Robertson, II II " 1858. II • u " V. " MS., N. Y., 1859. II II Gibbs V. EUithorpo, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859. II u " V. Johnson, II II " 1860. u u ; Grover k Baker Sow. Mac 1 Co. V. Sloat, f MS., N. Y., 1800. II M Howe V. Morton, 13 Mo. Law Rep., 70, Mass., 1860. II II " V. Williams, MS., " 1860. II U " V. Underwood, MS., " 1854. II a Hunt V. Howe, ilS. (App. Cas.), D.C., 1855. II II Johnson v. Root, MS., Mass., 1858. II II Munson, Ex parte. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859. II II Potter t'. Holland, MS., Ct., 1853. II II " V. Stedman, HiSkV ■"■" " 1858. II II " V. Wilson, m:, N. Y., 1860. II II Ri.^'mond, C. II., Ex parte. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 18G1. II II Singer v. Walrasloy, MS., Md.. 1859. II II " V. Wilson, MS.. N. Y., 1858. II II " V. Wooster, 4 BlatcM, " 1857. II II Wickcrsham v. Singer, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1859. II II Wilson V. Singer, II II " 1860. Sowing Silk, manufr. of. Hill V. Dimlee, II II " 1857. 11 II Lillie V. Kolsey, i< II " 1858. Shingle Machines, Earle v. Pago, 6 N. Hamp., 477, N. IL, 1834 " " " V. Sawyer, 4 Mason, 1, Mass, 1826. 11 II Judkins v. Earle, 7 Greenl, 9, Me., 1830. II li Peek V. Bacon, 18 Conn., 377, Ct., 1847. II II " V. FarringtOD, 9 Wend., 44, N. Y., 1832. Ship's Timbers, preserving, Melius V. Silsby, • 4 Mason, 108, Mass., 182S. I; >iiii yww,; 1 *"— 'wii/' ,TTi i^ii^^. '^^^ ,l'l 1, -m r"M TAHLE OF CASE8, IJ. AUUANUKI) AS TO NUBJKCT MATTKIt. Shocn, livctinjT, " Soles of, Silkx, |)riiitiu|{, Skirts, w M FlatfS. Artin.'iiil, Htiiiit Mni'liinc, isi»oi'(lL'r for roving Cotton, Ilazaril v. Orrcn, Eaiiii'H V. Hii'iiards, Mi'(iuw V. Hryari, ChaniborH, Kx purto, Mann, " Nowmai), " 8iii'rw(i()il I'. Siierman, Street I'. Silver, Cansl'T V. Katon, Davull V. Urown, ilS. (A pp. CaH.), M i II " V. Wells, 4 " 144, II 1857. Bergor'a ■\Vatclios, Samuel v. Borgor, 24 Barb., S. C, 1 03, II 1856. Calfskiim, Mark of, Leuioino v. Gauton, 2 K. 1). Smith, 343, II 1854. Chiiioso Liiiiiiu'iit, CoH'cen V. Bruntou, 4 McLean, 510, Ind., 1849. Christy's Minstrels, Christy v. Murphy, 12 How. Pr., 77, N, Y. 1856. Club-IIouso (Jin, Corwiii V, Daly, Upton on Trade-mks, 187, " 1800. Couoaiue, Burnett v. Piitdon, 12 Mo. L. Rep., 220, II 1859, II " 0. " 11 Abb. Pr., 157; ' 19 How. Pr., 530, II 1860. II " V. " 12 Abb. Pr., 180; 180L 21 How. Pr., 100, Davis' Pain-Killer, Davis V. Kendall, 2 R. I., 500, R. L, 1850. Eye Water, Ruddcrow v. Huntington, 3 Sand. S. C, 252, N.Y. , 1849. Glass, Mark of, Stokes V. Landgraft", 17 Barb. S. C, 008, II 1853. Good-will, Williams v. Wilson, 4 Sand. Cli., 379, II 1846. Howe's Bakery, Howe V. Searing, 19 How. Pr., 14, II 1800. Indian Root Pills, Comstock V. Moore, 18 " 421, II 1800. Irving IIouso, Howard v.Henriquos, 3 Sand. S. C, 725, II 1851. it II Stone V. Carlan, 3 Mo. Law Rep., 300, Mass. , 1850. Matches, Friction, Partridge v. Menck, 2 Sand. Ch., 022, N.Y. , 1840. II II " V. " 2 Barb. Ch., 101, II 1847. II II " V. " How. App. Cas., 547, II 1848. Meen Fun, Hobbs V. Francais, 19 How. Pr., 507, -;^W.- 1*«l 12 tai;lk of casks, b. AUIIANUKI) AH TU SI'IUECT MATTI'.U. Thadk-Makkh— <*onf/nt<«(/. Thromi nix-cord Wire, " thrco-coril Cubic, Tickinjc, Lrtbcl for, Wliito J*ml, Murk of, Yonkuo iSoiip, Truss, II Turning Irregular Formfl, «i II II II II II It ' II II II II II , " lH-19. 26 Uarb., H. C, 410, " 1867. 2 UoHW., I, " 1867. TT|itononTrado-mkB, 187, " IHOQ. G Mo., 4U0, Mo., 1840. 4 Klookf., 183, Ind., 1830. fOpin. Atty. Oon., fill-) ,„,„ pin'« Kd., 1841,1126, f ^''•''• 2 ltliitchf,411, Ct., 1852. 1 Wall., Jr., :j:i7, IV 1849. Wu8t. Law Jour., 82, N. H., 1848. 3 Sumn., 270, MaHH., 18.'(8. 3Sun»n.,635;2Story,lC4, " lua!). 3 DIatchf., 307, N. Y., 1866. w II II Ulun. ( i un-StV'k Turning Fac. »'. ilai'oliH, 2 Blatchf., 69, " 1847. 14 U II Uliin.(!un-.StVk Turning Fuc. V. Warner, V. . 1 " 268, Ct., 1846. Volvos , Stcam-Engines, Sickles V. Borden, 3 Blatchf., 535, N.T., 1866. II II " V. " MS., " 1867. II It " V. Olou. Mnnuf. Co., MS., N. J., 185G II It " V. Mitcliell, 3 Blatchf., 548, N. Y., 1857. ti It " V. Pac. Mail S. S. Co., 4 " " 1867. ii It " V The Falls Co., 4 " Ct., 1861. ,■!♦' u " V. Tillcson, 4 " N. Y., 1867. It It " t'. Young, 4 " " 1855. II It Judson V. Cope, Ma, Ohio, 1860. II II " V. Monro, MS., " 1860. II Water Closets, Bartliolomow i'. Sawyer, MS., N. Y., 1869. Vault Lif^hts, Coriioll i;. Hyatt, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1856. II 11 Jack.son, l']x parte. MS. " 185(5. Vencor.'), Burr V. Gregory, 2 Paine, 426, N. Y., 1828. Vessels , GaffK for, Brown v. Duchesne, 2 Curt., 97, Mass., 1854. It II " V. " 2 " 371, " 1856. ti II " V. " 19 IIow., 183, Sup. Ct., 185G H Steering Apparatus, Cochrane v. Waterman, W. MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1C44. "VVapon Whcol.s Young V. Hunter, 2 Seld., 203, N. Y., 1852. "Washing Machines, Cros.s V. Huntley, 13 Wend., 385, " 183r). II II King V. Gcdney, MS. (App. Cas.), D. C, 1856. II 11 Wayne v. Winter, C McLean, 344, Ohio, 1863. Watch Chains, making. K(i)linger v. Do Young, 10 Wheat., 358, Sup. Ct., 1825 Water, salt to fresh. Lamb's case. 5 Opin., Atty. Gen., 725 1820. II Wheels, Bryce v. Dorr, 3 McLean, 582, Mich., 1845. II 11 Case V. Red field. 4 " 520, Ind., 1849. II 11 Hiatt V. Twomey, 1 Dev. A Bat. Eq., 315, N. C, 1836. II 11 HoUiday v. Rheem, 18 Penn., 405, Pa., 1852. 11 11 Hotchkias v. Oliver, 6 Denio, 314, N. Y., 1848. II II Parker v. Banker, 6 McLean, 631, Ohio, 1855. , " 11 " V. Bigler, MS., Pa., 1857. II II " V. Brant, II " 1850. 11 " , " V, Corbin, 4 McLean, 462, Ohio, 1848. II 'i " V. Ferguson, 1 Blatchf., 407, N. y., 1849. II It " V. Hallock, MS., Pa., 1858. II It ^ " V. Ilatfleld, 4 McLean, 61, Ohio, 1845. II II " V. Haworth, 4 " 370, lU., 1848. II It " V. Hulme, 7 West. Law Joui., 417, Pa., 1849. H «« , -.,. " V. Perkins, MS., " 1848. Watoi W M It It Weather .' AV'ouvors' ' II Weaving C Whoeis, h( Wiunowinjj W(K)d Bond ^Vool anil C Zinc, Oxide i •• a TAHLE OF CASKS, ». IB AllUAMIKI) AH TO HllUKl r MATTKU. Wntui Whetils, Porker v. Sourn, Ma, Pu., IHSO. II It •' 1'. HlilfM, 5 M(<[ic IVnn., 317, I'u., lHr.1. 1) 11 WinltTinuto V. Ilunipliruy, lt» West. Luw Jour., 02, (Jliio, IHril. II II " V. UodinKtou, MS., " iHr.tj. Wouther Strip, Loach, V,x parto, " (App.Co8.), D. C, IHOO. Woiivora' TcmploB, JilUon V. VViiiHor, tt II " 1H60. II u Lovoriilxo t'. Duloiior, 11 II " 1801. Woavint< GcmmIh, I'roiitiMs V, KlJMWorth, Mir. Pot. Off., 35, Pa., 1840. WIidoIh, horizoiitul | li>>K. jrojKjl- [ l8imc« V. Cooper, 4 Wftsh., '269, " 1921. Wiunowiiig Miu'hinoH, Sumiora v. Fiiit^an, 3 Wnll, Jr., " 1861. II ti Hi'iiley V. lli'uii, MS. (App. Cas.), D. 0., 1801. Wood Hondinn Mud iiiort, Morriit v. Uurrett, MS., Oiiio, 1858. \V(kjI und Uottoii floiiiiing, NoMiiiith V. Culvert, 1 W. k M., 34, Mostt., 1816. " " curding, Soo Cordin\) Altichinea, m Zinc, Oxido of, Burrows v. Wothoroll, MS. (App. Cus.), D. 0., 1854. 11 a Jonos t;. " ... IlL NWin«, ?^^.^.r>*i. . :!'-k^ w wwuw/V': w '****(» ' •« ^ i? v. , 1 "ms *^mm *i mn exclusive right ^w»i* TABLE OF CASES ftSff!"**- Nkvt AJTIUMED, APPROVKD, CRITICISKD, DISA.I'PROVED, KXAMINED, EXPLAINED, OVEKUULKI), QUESTIONKl), UEVKliaED, 4a Allkn v. Ulunt, 3 Story, 742. — Mahh., Ifllf). Approved, tlittt n foniicr vordii-t upon a ffigiio fitiiil upon llio facts found liy it, iior biiuliiij^ upon tiie court, mid in no cohc, uidoss muictionotl bv a 8ul)s('(juent hciirini; on the merits of th(! case. Alhn v. lUitnt, ti Wood, it Min., 1 :}•-'.— Mush., 184(5. Critieised, as to tlic conclusiveness of tlio decision of the Coininissioncr of Patents in respect to n reissue. Jhid., 130. Approved, as to the conclusiveness of tlio decision of the Commissioner in such ease. lirookn v. Fish, 15 How., 228.— Slip. Ct., 185.1. Ames c. IIowARn, 1 Siimn.,4Sj. — Mass., 183r}. Approved, as to doctriiit; that pat- ents and specifications should l)e construed liberally. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock, 309. — Va., 1827. Davoll v. lirown, 1 Wood. & Min., 57.— Mass., 18 to. Amoskeaq Manl'fac. Co. v. Speau, 2 Sand. S. C, 599.— N. Y., 1849. Ap- proved, as to tho nature of the wronjj in violatini^ a trade-mark. Samuel v. Jier- ger, 24 Barb. S. C, 104.— N. Y., 1850. ' That whore the exclusive right in a trade- mark is denied, an injunction will not generally issue in the first instance. Ibid., 165. Fetriihjc v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Br., 161.— N. Y., 1857. Approved, as to tho exclusive riiiht to sell an article by its de- scriptive name. Felritlt/e v. Weill, 13 How. I'r., aHH.— N. Y., 1857. Approved, that an exclusive ri;^ht cannot bo h.nl in Words or siijns indicating only tho ori;j;in of the article, its appropriate name, or the mode or process of its manufacture. HV/V v. (/oularcl, 18 llow. Br., 07.— N. v., iHoO. Corwin v. A////, Upton on Trade-Marks, 19H.~X. Y., IHOO. Atwill v. Fekuett, 2 Blatchf., 39. — N. Y., 1840. Approved, tliat a person eiiiployini; another to compile a work is not entitled to take a eopyrij^ht for such work. Pierponl v. F'oivle, 2 \Vood. Ss Mill., 40.— .Mass., 1840. B)Auuktt r. Ham., 1 Mason, 447.— Mass., 1818. Approved, that parties liavin;^ ob- tained a joint patent, neither can set up a separate patent jjranted to himself for tho same thinnj. Slearna v. Barrett, 1 Bick., 447. — Mass., 1823. Examined, as to doc- trine that a patent cannot embrace distinct inventions; and restricted to such inven- tions as are not contemplated to be used in connection. Wycth v. Stone, 1 Story, 288, 290. — Mass., 1840. This case attempts a generalization of the doctrines of the pat- ent law, as to the questiou whether tho same patent can be at once for a com- bination, and for eacli of the improved machines, but the definition adopted had no necessary connection with the case. Mil ■liii. ^^i::"!' A"" 'UlU/, ^r^^c:;:,* t j.i.1 i ■'jW ILLilil ' w>^>tw^. W^W*'*^" re TAIJLE OF CASES, C. OAiKi irriuMKii, c'liniciiiiii, kto. I* ''I ' k »%■ £mcT»OH y. Ifoffif, '» Hlutclif., 7.— N. Y., 1840. .\j){>rovi't|, that n npi rifli'iaioii tttUNt Mtuto in wliiit nn iiitprovomciit oiw •UtH ami l>i< Itiiiitnl ti> it. Ti/lti- v. Dtvai, I Cod.' Ii..j»., ;((» (Li) -1 -48. 1{aiitiiiii,umkw I', Hawvku. MS. — N. Y., 1H5I). .\|>|)riivi>«l, timt till* pittontinf; of nn iiivriitiou ahniiul to ilcffitt n putcitt ((nitilt'd Ik re, iiiusl have lucii In fDri' tin' Jiivcritinii In re, and not iiMTcly iM'fnro tlii' application. Howe v. Morton, 13 Mu. Law Mop., 70.— MiMH., 1 HHO. IIattiv f. 'I'aookut, li Wail,, Jr., mi. - I'u., 1851. li(!vej'H('d, that a dt'scrijiti i , in a Hpociflration, of a part of a niat-liirii-, >vithoiit makiiig a chuiii for it. is a dil all .vard be recallt'd hy a rciftnuc. /A ' 'irt, V. TiKjiifrl, 17 How., 8:j,— Sup. Ct.. 1854. Kxainined and conttidcri'd, that his CAi^ii docs not dfcidc, that the ipu -lion whether a rei-iHiietl patent it for tie' same invention as \.\w ori;riiiai, is oi^c exelusivelv for tho jury. Poppcuhcusen v. Fdlk-c, MS.— N. Y., 1801. IJattin i'.Taookrt, 17 liow., 7-3. — Sup. ex., 1H54. Approved, that did'eren i s in the elainm of an <>ri<;inal and reissiiod pat- ent arc conHistcnt with identity of inven- tion. IftiftHcy V. i\fc (^)rmtck, MS. — III., 1859. Bean r. S.viallwood, 2 Stoiy, 408. — Mass., 1843. Approved, that a niaehine, (fee., to he patentable, nui.st bo substan- tially new — an ai>plieation to a nt!W pur- pose is not suflicient. ^y/''* v. JJcral, 1 Code Hop.; 31.— La., 1848. Le lio>j v. Tathum, 14 IIow., 177.— Sup. Ct., 1852. J'edkordj'. Hunt, 1 Mason, ;{'I2. — Mass., 1817. Whitnei/ V. h'miiirtf, ilald.,300.— Pa., 1831. .\pproved, that an invention is useful if it is not frivolous or injuri- ous. Exatnined, as to wliat con.'ititutes the use of an invention within the meaning of the act of 1 793. Watson v. lilw fen, I Wash., bUt.i. — I'o., 1H20. Oimuiented on, aa to tho doctrine that " the Hntt inventor wiio liOH ri'dui t.l his invention to practice, ond I 1 only, IN entitled ton patent." Itiilriuth, v. //e.iM, Ms. -I). <;., 1841. Approved, tliitt a patent may he tjefeated l»y Nhowlng that the tiling patented had bevn befuro lisffd, li(»wever limite- pincotl, 2U Jour. I'V. Innt., 3d Ser., 16, — I 'a., 1883. IIki,!, V, LocKK, 8 Vnlgci, 7rt. — N. Y., 184Li88 v. Neous, 8 Mass., 40. — Ma-is., 1811. Questioned, as to the position that the title to a patent will fiil because asHiy[iiruent from original patentee is not recorded. Jloldcnv. Curtis, 2 N. llamp., 03.~-N. IL, 1819. Approved, that state courts may cxeiciso jurisdiction of suits where patents •■ono in que.stion collater- ally. Jiich \. Ilofrhkm, 10 Conn., 414 — Ct., 1844. ,\ pprovod, that the fraudu- lent obtaining of a f)atent is a good de- fence to a note givf ,i for it. Wilder v. Ad- ams, 2 \\ ood. «k Min., 332. — Mass., 184C. Uluomkii fi30.— Sup. p(milii)ii thii of file aef o it limited t< cllill's Used exicnsiitn, ai tion did Hot ilecided in il I'*l.'if''lif., 48( I>OHTO.V .M lU).-Mas9., inclutlin}; -m niont of a pa like chari^es. 1 Wall., Jr., IIkooklvn •2r, IJarb. S. proved, that mark can e\ dicatin;; mere sold. Wof/e 1 -N. Y., IH.",! BnooKB ('. I Ohio, 1H43. trator can app of a patent. Story, 172.—, BUOVVN V. Mas-t,, 1855. property vesli cut does n(»t tliinij patenl( lawfully entiM'i was put upon and autliorizec try. Proirii v —Sup. Ct., 18 BURRALL V. N. Y., 1830. that the jurisdi under the act in all cases ii laws ; but lie, under the act TAH[,K OK CASKS, C. 77 «»«. OAHM ArrillMKu, UHincUMUl, ■TV. nr.OOMKH I'. MoQl KWAM, II II. >w,, 630. — SU|». ( 't., I Hrt'.'. KxUII>II>m1, iiH to till' iMiKilioii that ill ikii ('\l)>iiHUiiMi KJrr }$ IH (if f lit- in't of I8:i0, the ri^lit <.f' )iM»«i;;i»ei')« \n liiiiitfil t'. tit" UHO of (li. frtirtUMii.'ir tuit- I'liitn'M iiMi'ti liy them it tlic liuio of the cxli'iifiuii, (iikI Im'IiI that Mich pri'dw! <|ii('»- timi (ii'l Hot iirlM»« urul wan fot n«^<-'c«!*aril) i|ici iiwhuliiiti .'S a part of chifiwinf tnnh-- niiirlv can oxi^t, in tlic nso of words in- ilicatiiiji incroly the nature <»f the article sold. Wolff V. Oouhird, IH How. l'r„ 00. — N. Y., i s,"i>. Brooks v. IIioknk;.!., 3 McLean, 'J/50. — Ohio. 18in. Approve!, that an aclniinis- trator can apply for and take an •■xtonsion of a patent. M'xxlirnrlh V. Sherman, '\ Story, 17l'.— Mass., IHU. I'.iiowN V. DuciiEaNK, 2 Curt., .T71. — Mas-t., 1 856. Aflirincd, that tlie rijjht of property vested in a patentee by his pat- ent does not extend to tlie use of the thinij patented upon a forei;jn vessel lawfully entering our ports, if sneh thing was put upon her in a foreign country, and authorized by the laws of such coun- try. Drown \. Duchesiv . 19 How,, 108. —Sup. Ct., 1850. BuRRALL V. Jkwett, 2 Paigo, 134. — N. Y., 1830. Approved, oh to doctrine that the jurisdiction of the Federal courts under the act of 1810 wis not exclusive in all cases in equity under the patent laws ; hut //< W, that the decision was under the act of 1819, which was supcr- wded by the net of 1838., Oihnon v. \r>ioi'>ri>rlh,8 I'aige, 133.— N. Y., 1810. C'.VRvKR V. \\\ B, 10 IVt., -'1:J.-^ Sup. <'t., IHIJ. Approvinl, that th(t u»e of [>ai't of » coinl'ination Ih nu ittfringciiient. Stini/»ion V. Jial. restrained. ^{nionkenej .Ui/. Co.\. Si>rar, 2 Sand. S, C, 013. — N. v., 1840. Cbosh w. HiNTLKY, 1 3 Wend., 385.—= \. Y., 1H:<,-.. Approved, that the invalidity of a patent is a good deftinee to an action on a noti' given for the purchase thereof. McDoiujuHv. Fogg, 2 Bosw., 301.— N. Y., 1H,58. J)avis v. Palmku, 2 Brock., 208. — V'ft., 1^27. Criticised, as to whether it does not present a too rigid adherence to /orni to be a guide for the present. Mnuij v. Si- zrr, MS., Mass., 1840. Ileferred to, as a case ill whicli the patent is limited to a particular forin. as described. Winans v. Dinmead, 15 How,, 343.— Sup. Ct., 1853. Davoll v. BiiowN, 1 Wood, it Min., 5;{. — .Mass., 1 845. Approved, that in con- structing the claim of a patent, resort may be had to the introduction of the specifi- cation as well as the summing up. Jlovvy v. Strirns, 1 Wood. & Min., 204.— Mass., 1840 ; S. C, 3 Wood. & Min., 21.— Mass., 1840. Day v. Cary, MS.— N. Y., 1850. Crit- icised and disapproved, that the term 1 V':.: •"WW, '\. -s-r--'! M^^^:^* %--- -ftSfe*?!* yii^^^ ^k^^^'^^j:^-' n TAIILK OF CA8K8, C. /^ CAMM ArrinuBo, ciimi'iini, im •••Iilrrt'il (fuixU," In tho Oooil^f.ir l»ii_\ Ci)htrikct« of 1N4C, U liiniU'il to );oo(l« initiif iimli'r tlio ilurri'ij pnti'iit ot Mnrrli Olli, |Nll. Miyv, A()«.— .Slip. Ct., 1HA7. Kkniuiiii'ilnnd i'iiii Naiiifiiliii'li Uul>ln'r Tk,, nlMn. ly, IHll, ciirriril the cKti'txIi'il icriii ot' tlu' putiiit of Jiinn I5tli, iNtl, HUH not ill'- cilll'll in tllin OiiM>, nn it WIIM Hot l)ffo|'(t till' court. Diiif V. Stillmiin, MS.-M.j., Ih/ik. I>AY I', Umiun Ki uiikh Co., '.'<> How., JilfJ. — Hii|). (!t., IN.>7, Appri.vi'ij, us to oonHtrui-tioii of till' n((n'i'nji'iit of .Si>pli>iii- !)i'r ntli, |H50, l)i'twi'i«n JikIhom urid <'|iuf'- fin ; iiiit licM, tliHt till' I'lisi' iliil hot turn upon till' const rui'tion of tin' lit riiscH n-- fi'rrril to ill timt cum'. Jhiy v, SIiIIukih, MS.— .Mil., IHflO. I»KAN I'. MaHON, 'JO TIoW., 2n,1.~Slip. Cl., IH,")?. Kxaiiiiiii'il aiiil lii'ip.) Not It Juat I'Xpixilioll of ihi' ptMtvnt law of thi! United State*. UuUs. t'nlttr, I Story, ftl»H. -.Ma««., iHII. Moi oiiKHTr t'. \ AH NoMTHANn, li Iloir. Ch., fl«.— N. v., I Mat). A K'UiUn^ au- thority, thiit thi* ^ood-Hill of II liiiioini , doeo Mot Hiirvi\o to II coiitinniii'/ partner. W'iUiniuM V. W'ihim, \ Sand. C|i., :|M().— N. v., IS HI. //"«'«■ V. Sniriiiij, M) IIoW. I'r., 17.— N. Y., IHfld. Pini.KV /'. .Maviikw, n f!om., 0.— X.Y., IHHI. Apprmid, tliut ittato court«« h.4V« no jurisdiction of cunen rcHpectin;,' the \a- lidity of patents, Jiulmn d' (/innhjnir y, Uninu Huh. Co., 4 niatehf.— N. v., ls:.7. Ti>mlhi»////, 2 niatchf., 0, 10.— N. Y., iNt.".. Ki.i.rriioui'K I'. UoiiKRTHON, .MS.- |>. C,, JM'iH. Approved, as to what coiistitutrs a forfeiture of a patent. Jlcrt/ v. ThinlU\ .MS.— I). C, 1800. KMKnnos v. Havikm, H Story, 7ns.— .Mass., IHl.'f. Approved, that t )iistl- tute an infrin;;eiiient of ft copyriudit, it in not necessary there Hhould he a eoinpjitc copy or imitation thronj,dioiit ; hut only such an important and viiliiahle portioti used as Would operate injurious|\ to tjio copyrij^ht. Stori/n Kxrn, v. Ilolcnmhf, \ M.'L'an, .113.- Ohio, lHt7. KvANrt V. Katon, Tet. C. C, 32.1.— Pii,, 1810. Ueversed, that Kvans' patent was only for tho jjeneral result produced hy tho coiiihination of all his machinery, nnd not for the several machines .-is well as the fjeiicral result. Kvam v. h'aton, .'t Wheal., 505, 5 1 7.— Sup. Ct., 1818. AQiruied, that nndertheii.lof I with tho ii< le III lilld I II lined, "fa use ill utlitir in Kiii'li iiiitico, proved, tliut it ii cut for II conihiii whole. Ihirnlt Miws., INIH. ,\| knowh'il^o of an n ptttent. lirtxik 203. Ohio, |H( KVANH ('. KaTI Ct., IHIH. Kxuii iiiiH V, h'titnit, 3 I'linixm,' V. Ihr I'll., INIH. A'lvi 4211. — Pa., IHU tcriim "an impr iinproveiiit'iit on Ktaiitially the sun I!a.d., 314.- Pa. (Ill act of < ,'oiij^rc I auHo it tyrants pulilic use. liliiiii .'iH. — .Mass., 1h;i timt II patent c. ono invention. '-'88. — Mas«., I H J ti'iiie intimated I not i^ivc a ri^cht cliineH Heparatel nation, Emerso -X. Y., lM4r,. ai't of CoiijLfresH p'lrded as enyra Jllonmcr v. Afc(. Sup. Ct., 1852. ant is not limit oral issue, with i cially. Da;/ v. Hlatchf., 181.— Kvans r. Ka 1818. Allirme. under a special! TAitr.i: or casks, o. Tt W99H,, Vhwn ArriHMki), I'mricmHi), ita "Mi'l>r till' ict of 1 700, uti'lff II H"tt{i'i» wfvi'il vviili ili<> ^'> III ml iKiiic, tliitt iiri iii\< iitinii li 1 1 Ih'> II iiHi.l, oiili'iii'o i-i>iil<| III) ijivi'ii "t n tiiH* ill ittliur pliiiM'M tliiiii tliMHd iiHtiicij ill KiH'li lliitli'tt. /hill,, AOM, AOl. A|f |>r<)vi'i|, thiit It U iiM liifriii^i'iiH'iit tif II put- I III fur II I'oiiihiiiatioii to iiMo li'M tliiiii till' xnIi'.Io. Harrrtt v. J/nll, 1 Mu»., 474.— MiiHN., IHIH. Approvi'ij, tliiit prior iiti* or l^lln\\|ii|^i> of lUI illVl'tltioll will illVIlli It piitiiif. Ilritokn V. /llikmll, :\ MiLiiin, '2«l:i.— Ohio, IH4n. KvANH ('. Katun, 3 Wiu'iit,, 4rt4.— Sup. <'f., I.HIH. Kxiuniiifil iihd t'\plaiiii'i|. AV- •iiiH V. h'litDfi, M NViihIi., 4.'>i». I'll., IMIM. rvllilHinv V. Ihrrin'iir, 4 \Vii«li., 'J 1 7. — I'll., IHIH. Kinnn v. Ifilllrk, :« NViihIi., 4-_MI. — Pa., IHIH. Approvi'.l, tlint tin- tt'i'iim "lui improvnl uiiii'liiiir" iiikI "hii iiiipnivriiii'iit oil u iniii'liiiic," iirc niiI>- Ktiiiitially tli« HiHiH'. W'hilmij v. Kiiniuit, r.ii.d., .'U4.— I'll., lfl:U. Approvoil, flint mi lU't of . lilanrhiiftl v. S)ira;iiii; M Siiiiiii., /ill. — .MtiKM., inai), KMimiiu'il, iw to point tlmt II pati'iit cannot inclinli' iiiorc tlian (pim invention. Wi/eth v, Stnnr, 1 Story, 'J8S, — Mum., IHUK (iueHtioned, an to doe- tt'iiio intimiiteil that tiio Kaiiio patent cnii- not f^ivo a rif^ht to tlio u«o of Hcvcral iiia- cliiiicH Heparately and for them in eonilii- iiatioii. Kiuernon v, //o//,'/, -' Ulatclit'., 7. — N. Y,, 1845, Approved, that a Hpeeial net of Congress m to ft pfttont is to ho re- pirded as eni;raftf>(| on the j^eneral aetx. liloomcr V. McQui'ivan, li How., filS. — Slip. Ct., IH.")!*. Approved, that a defend- ant is not limited to tho plea of the gen- onil issue, with notiee, hut may plead sp<>- ci.iUy. Baij V. N. K. Var-Hprinri Co., n I'.latchf., 181.— X. v., 1H.-)1, KvANfl V. Katon, .T Wash., 44.1.— Pa., 1818. Afllmieil, that Flvans' patent issiieil under a special act was not an exception to lliii ffrni'fiil provUtoM p( itiit patent lawn; Itt'iiig for an iiiiprovetiii'iit, it ithoiild liitvn M't out wihat liln iitiproveiiii'nt wiw, h'riniM V. Kuhm,'^ Wlieilt., M.'d',, Siip. (,'t, IHJJ. KvANn e. Katoji, 7 NMieat., nftrt.—Hiip. <'t., |H;."J, ,\ppro\ed, that if ii patent iloen not detn'rihe the new from the old, it will 1)0 void, /lr»f)li V. Itii'kitrll, M Mi'Li'iiii, 411.— (Miio, IHU. Approved, that a pat- entee tntiMt Ntiite diHtinetly what he i-laiiii<«. Ilruokit V, Finh, »5 I low., 'J 1 5.— Hup. Ct., |ha:i. KVANM /'. IlKTTICIt, H Wllnll., 408. Vr., IHIH. Alllrmed. Kvann v. Jfctliek, 7 Wheat., 4rt:».— Sup. Ct., IH'2'2. KvKSH I', JoniiAM, I llroek., 'J48. — Vft., lHl:i. I)eei(|ed on eertitli'ilte of diviHion, that under the net of Ihiih for relief of (). Kviint, those who had ereeteil his ma- elilnery between the expiration of his old patent and the grant of the new, had no right to eoiitiniie its use. h'l'onn v, Jordan, Cra., liU4.— Sup. ('t., iMlfl. KwKR »'. CoxK, 4 Wash., 487. — Pa., 1824. Approved, that under the eopy- right net of l7no the piilijieation of the reeoid of eii|>yright and the dej)osit of a liook with the Secretary of State are not prereipiiHited to iditainiiig a copyright, Whi'iitnn V, Pctem, 8 I'et., ODM. — Sup. ("t., I8:tl. Commented on, whether any change as to the reiiuiri'iin'iits to secure ii eopyiight were made by tho act of 1802. Ihij., 090.— Dis. Opin. Fai.ms r.(iuii.KiTH, Wright, ^0.1.- Olno, 18;)n. Approved, that a ".ycA'.*,* patent i« no consideration for a promise to pay. MrDnufjnll v. Fofjy, 2 Bos., 301.— N. Y., 18r)8. FKTuinoE r. "WF.i.i.fl, in TTow. Pr, ^'ut, — X. Y., lH,"j7. .\pproved, that a naino cannot be protected as a trade-mark when it is used to designate tho article, ainl has become its proper appellation, and docs rirw viirn -^j. •'^.., ■^tn .^^^ ^i 'irtf'j »»wv'» ' • w^ ^*^ mn M«fiiii .^^yw*^ if^y^m^^ TAIJLK OF CASKS, C. ■'Will*,,. t.VHKH ArilUJIKD, CUITICIHKI), ETC. not iiidii'iitc its onLjiii or owncisliip. Tom- linnoii V. JJallc/l,y[H.—S. \ . lt<57. H'o/fe, V. Goulard, 18 IIow. lY, 38.— N. V., 1859. FoLSOM ('. Mauhii, 2 Story, 100. — Mass., ]sn. A|ipn»vi'(l, as to t)io extent u re- viewer may eito from an orij^'iiial woriv without ititVini^ing. St.ri/s Kxrs. v. Ilol- combe, 4 McLean, 300, iUO. — Ohio, 1847. Anil tliat a bona fdf abridgement is not an infrini,'cment. //>/(/., Ml 1-;H 5. Approved, tiiat the right of property in private Ktlers remains iii the writer. TiartUtt v. Crit- tenden, ') Me Lean, 43, — Ohio, 1849. Ap- proved, that all letters are literary eoinjio- sitiinis, and entitled to protection ; and as to right of property therein. Woolsvy v. Judd, 4 Duer, 390, 405, 400.— X. Y., 1855. F OTE V. SiLSHV, 1 r.hitehf., 445.— N. Y., 1849. Aflirmed, as to what is a sulli- cient statement of the interest, in a dis- chiimer of the patent, of the person mak- ing the dischiimcr. SilKhy v. Footv, li How,, 2-21.- Sup. Ct., 1852. Aflirmed, that a reference to a book, mentioned in the notice, recpiired with the plea of the general issue, must b< to page or section; a general reference not enough. Ihld., 223, 224. Affirmed, that in a patent for a combination, a claim foi such machinery as produces a given result is sufficiently definite. Ibid., 225. FooTE V. SiLsny, 2 Blatchf., 276.— X. Y,, 1851. Affirmed, as to wliat is granted by Foote's patent, but reversed, as to the allowance of interest and costs. Sihbi/ v. Foote, 20 IIow. 385.— Sup, Ct., 1857. Sustains, in fact, the ruling below, tliat a judge may disregard the finding of a jury upon a feigned issue, and give a decree in opposition thereto. Ibid., 385. Foster v. Moore, 1 Curt., 280. — Mass., 1852. Approved, that no fixed time of possession of patent is necessary to war- rant an injunction. Sarr/eant v. Scar/rave, 2 Curt., 557.— 11. I., 1855. Gavi.kr c. Wilukr, 10 IIow., 477.— Sup, Ct., 1850. Approved, that by an a.ssignment before j)atent issued, the legal title of the patent enures to the assignee. Sarf/iant v. Sraf/rnre, 2 Curt., 555, 550.— U. I., 1855. Commented t)ii, as to when, uiuhr § 15 of tiie act of 1830, a prior use and knowledge abroad will invalidate a patent. ( 'ultoon v. liinr), MS, — .Me., 1859. Ceuier c. Cook, 3 Watts it Serg., 200. — I'a., 1842. Approved, that a party can- not ri'cover on a note given for a purchase of a |)atent, if the patent was not new and useful, though both parties acted in good faith. MvCture v. Jiffrcij, 8 Ind., 82.-— Ind., 1850. (jiooDVEAU V. Day, 2 Wall., Jr., 283. — X. J., 1852. Approved, as to what con- stitutes sui-h i> prior invention as will defeat a subsequent patent. Sinyer v. WHlrsley, MS.— Md., 18r,9. CooDVEAR *'. Matthews, 1 Paine, 302.^ — < 't., 1814. Examined, as to what use of an invention, before patent, will deprive a party of a right to a patent. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Fet,, 317.— Sup. Ct., 1833. Goodyear & N. E. Car Spring Co. 1'. I'liELPS, 3 IJlatehf., 91.— N. Y., 1853. Approved, that the directors, managers, and agents of a corporation, are liable, individu.'illy, as for an infringement of a patent, and may be enjoined. Poppen heusen v. Fulke, MS.— N. Y., 1801. Grant v. Raymond, Pet., 218. — Sup. Ct., 1832. Approved, as to the right to surrender a patent, and obtain a reissue thereof. Ames v. Howard, 1 Sumn., 488. — Mass., 1833. Shaio v. Cooper, 7 Pet., 3 1 5. —Slip. Ct., 1 833. Brooks v. BiehicU, 3 McLean, 438. — Ohio, 1844, Bat tin v. Tat/fjert, 17 IIow., 83,— Sup. Ct., 1851. Approved, that a defendant may picab speci.iUy, instead of the general issue, with notice. Day v. N". E, Car-Spring Co., 3 Blatchf., 181.— N. Y., 1854. Gray j 1817. Ci position t machine h inachine in niad(f bv a Whitney \ 1831. GiiAY V. 1S39. Ap -ornbinatioi upon a new light. Fm Mass., 1845 ILVRTSIIOI Su{). Ct., 1 8i upon the eon between Clia Cliafleo pater of (loodyear. such patent July 1st, 185 Md,, 1859. Co., 20 IIow. Heao v. N. Y,, 1838. ncss of a p.u fonce to a n thereof, Mc 391.— x\, Y., IIeruert v. 1825. Appro signment of a tion for an infi in the name Wilder, 1 II, IIiatt v. Tw ^'. Car., 1S3G, C'ansler v. Fat\ >'• Car., 1850, Hiogins v. fnS). Approved, tiiat the arraiii^emeut or iinil>iiiatioii of the materials of a book upon a new phui, may be sul)jeet of eopy- riii'lit. Eimrson v. Dark's, 3 Story, 781. — Mass., 1815. IIautsuoiiv i>. Day, 19 ITow., 211, — Sup. Ct., ISoO. Decision in this case rests upon tlie contract of November liith, 18.51, between Cliatlec & Judson, and under It the Charteo patent was in Judson for the benefit of (loodyear. and Day took no interest in sucOi patent by Clialfce's assiijniuent of July 1st, 185.3. JJa>/ v. Stdhnan, MS.— Md., 1 859. Approved, Da;/ v Union Ruh. Co., 20 How., 21V.— Sup. Ct., 1857. IIeao v. Stevkns, 19 Wend., 411. — N. Y., 1838. Approved, that tlie useless- nc9s of a patent may be set up as a de- fence to a note given for tlic purchase thereof. McDoitr/al v. For/t;, 2 Bosworth, 391.— N. Y., 1858. IIkrbeut v. Adams, 4 Ma".., 5. — Mass., 1825. Approved, that in case of an as- signment of a patent before issue, an ac- tion for an infringement must be brouglit in tlie name of the assignee. Gaylfr v. Wilder, 10 How., 493.— Sup. Ct., 1850. Ill ATT V. TWOMEY, 1 Dev. & Bilt., 315. — X. Car., 183G. Criticised and explained. Canslcr v. Fafon, 2 Jones, Eq., 499. — X. Car., 185G. IliGGiNS V. Strong, 4 Blackf., 182. — Ind., 1830. Approved, that under act of 1793, an assignment of patent, to be val- id, nuist bo recorded. McFall v. Wilson, Blackf., 26 .— lud., 1842, Mulliken v. 6 [Mtchvin, 7 Blackf, 138. — Ind., \H\\. McKcrniin v. JHt,\ Ind., 429.— Ind., 1855. HiLDiiEATiir. IIkatii,MS.— D. C, 1841. Approved, that the first one to conceivo an invention is entitled to a patent, provi- ded he uses reasonalile diligence to perfect it. Ikvnly Rub. Co. v. Winy, MS.— D. C, 1800. • Hill /«. Thomson, 3 Mcriv. R., 022, Ld. Kldon, Chan. Approved, as to r\de gov erning allowance of injunctions. Sullivan v. Rnljicld, 1 I'ainc, 449.— X. Y., 1825. Washburn v, Gould, 3 Story, 17(). — Mass., 1844. llooa r. Kmkuson, How., 437. — Sup. Ct., 1847. Explained and adirmed. Jlor/;/ V. Emerson, 11 How., 587. — Sup. Ct., 1850. HoTcrtKiss V. GRfcK>fwoon, 4 McLenn, 450.— Ohio, 1844. Allirmed. that the al- leged invention was but a now appliciition, and not patentable. Hotclikina v. Green- wood, W How., 248.— Sup. Ct., 1850. lIovKY ('. Stevens, 1 Wood, it Min., 303.— Mass., 184G. Approved, that mere possession of a patent will not warrant an injunction. Mitchell v. Barchn/, MS. — X. Y., 18G0. Howe ('.Abbott, 2 Story, 194. — Mass.. 1842. Explained, .is to point that a new- application or purpose is not patentable. Holchkisa V. Greenwood, 11 How., 270. — Sup. Ct., 1850. Dis. Opin. HovT V. McKenzie, 3 Barb. Ch., 320. — X. Y., 1848. Criticised and held, that the decision therein, that the publication of private letters will not be restrained, unless they possess the character of lifern- ri/ compositions, was a departure from es- tablislied law, and not a binding aatlvority. Woolseij v. Judd, 4: Duer, 389, 406.— N. Y., 1855. Kendall v. WiNSOR, 21 Ho*.,. 328.— Sup. Ct., 1858. Approved, as to jbrfcit- " n.A 'y^i.^'ti. -to. ; rm A u : 1 1 LU-Md »*W«£r**r ■'? TABLE OF CASES, C. CAHKS ArrilUlED, ORITIOIBEI), ETC. urc of patent. Birg v. Thistlr, MS.— D. C, 1860. Murcy v. 7Vo// etl'ect of neg- ligence in failing to apply for a ]»atent for an invention. Snowden v. Pierre, MS. — j I). C, 1861. Lowell v, Lewi, 1 Mason, 182. — Mass., 1817. .\pprovcd, that a patent for an imniovcioent must distinguish the new from tin; old. Evans v. Ifcttick, 3 Wash., 426.— Pa., 1818. Approved, that an iin ention is useful if it is not frivolous or mischievous. Kneasa v. Sehui/l. liioih, 4 Wash., 12.— Pa., 1820. Whitney v. Eutmett, TJald., 309.— Pa., 1831. Many v. Jaookh, 1 IMatchf, 372.-- \. Y., 1848. Correctness of Nelson, J.'s charge as to construction of plaintift''s pat- ent for car-wheels questioned. Ma)uj v. Sixer, MS.— Mass., 1849. McCLrua v, Kinosland, 1 IIow., 202. — Sup. Ct., 1843. Commented on, as to prior use under § 7 of the act of 1839. Pierson v. Eagle Serew Co., 3 Story, 40,5, 409.— It. I., 1844. Examined, as to provision respecting assignees, under § 18 of the act of 1836. Wilson v. Jiosscait, 4 IIow., 683.— Sup. Ct, 1845. Consid- ered to be a patent for the application of a known law of nature to a new purpose. O'Reilh/ V. Morse, Dis. Opin., 15 IIow,, 131.— Sup. Ct, 185.3. Conunented on. Daij V. Union Rub. Co., 3 Dlatchf., 505. — N. Y., 1866. McCoRMiCK V. Seymour, 2 Blatclif., 240.— N. Y., 1851. Reversed, as to rule of damages laid down therein. Sei/monr V. McCormick, 16 How., 491. — Sup. Ct., 1863. Approved, as to construction of McCornii(;k's patent. McCormick v. Many, 6 McLean, 556. — III., 1855. McCouMicK f. Seymour, 3 Blatchf., 209. —X. Y., 1854. Affirmed, except as to construe flic righ S< i/moK) Suj). Ct., •^'KuuI 4 K. 1). .^ proved, I i^iyU^ ofg( label user to their tr 18 How. ] MOODV 1820. A elusive as t V. Stone, 1 amined, as not einbrac( to ajijily to object or pu anu'ned, as U f'lc facts of ji'dgincnt o ^^":i[/, 2 Blat Morris v. TABLE OF CASES, C. 8i) OASES AFFIRUBn, ORITICISED, ETC. coiistnu'tioii of one claim of patent, anil tlic rij^lit of plaiiititf to recover costs. Sir V. McConnirk, 10 How., lOO. — Slip. Ct., IBflO. Mkuuimack Manuf. Co. r. (Iahneh, 4 K. I). Smith, 387.— N. Y., 1855. Ap- [HovihI, that one m.'xy imitate and sell the i^tvle of fjooils maile l>y another, unless the label used hy him deceives purchasers as to their true character. Wolfe v. (foulard, 18 How. lY, 09.— X. Y., 1850. Moody i'. Fiskk, 2 Mason, 112. — Mass., 1820. Approved, that the claim is con- clusive as to the patentee's rit;hts. Wi/vth v. Stone, 1 Story, 285.— Mass., 1840. Ex- aniiiieil, as to doctrine that a patent can- not emhracc distinct inventions, and held to ap[)ly to mai'hines havinjj; a conmion ol.ject or purpose. Ihhl., 201, 292. Ex- amined, as to same doctrine, and lield that the facts of the case did not demand a judi'meiit on that point. Kmcrsoti v. Ihiiy, 2 r.latchf., 8.— N. Y., 1845. MouKis V, IIi'NTiNoroN, 1 I'aiuc, 348. — N. Y., 1824. Approved, that a person cannot have two valid, suhsistini; patents lit the same time, for the same invention. rmidwdl V. Bladen, 4 Wash., 708.— Pa., 1827. Examined, as to what use of an invention will defeat a patent. Shaw V. Cooper, 317.— Sup. Ct., 1833. Nichols r. Rigoi.es, 3 Day, 14."j. — Ct, 1808. Approved, that under the copyright act of 1790, the publication of the title of a book, and the depositing^ a copy with the Secretary of State, are merely direc- i..iy. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., G93. — Sup. Ct., 1834. Nyman's Case, 3 Opin. Atty. Gen., ■MO. — 1839. Approved, as to power of an administrator to take out an extension of a patent. Brooksw BicIuicU, 3 McLean, 437, 438.— Ohio, 1844. Odiorne v. Ame81!ury Nail Fac, 2 Mason, 28. — Mass., 1849. Approved, that a person cannot have two subsisting valid patents at the same time for the same in- vention. Trcndirell v. Blad n, 4 W.ish,, 70H,70i).— I'a., lyj7. Oiile\'.Erje,\\\\\.s\\., 585. — I'a.. 1820. Approved, as to prin- ciples governlnj^ issue of injunctions. Hussey v. WkUely, MS.— Ohio, 1801. (/Ukii.lv v. Mouhk, J r> il<;'v., 02. — Sup. Ct., 1853. Considered, as liavinj^ settled the cpiestion of extent of the riii;hts secured to an inventor by his patent. Amer. Pin Co. v . Oakville Pin Co., 3 Amer. I.aw Keg., 137.— Ct., l.sr,4. Ap- proved as to the (juestion of unreasonable delay in tiliiit; a disclaimer. Seymour v. McCormIck, 19 1L)W., 100.— Sup. Ct., 1850. Approved, that a jiatent confers only a right to use tin; thing descrii)ed and nothing more. Burr v. Cowperlhwaite, 4 Illatchf.— Ct., 1858. Potter v. Hol- land, 4 Hlatchf.- Ct., 1858. Approved, as to the patentability of a principle. Sinyer v. Walmsley, MS. — MJ., 1859. Approved, that a reissued patent is pre- sumably for same invention as the original patent. Hussey v. Mc Cor mick, MS. — 111., 1859. Ork v. Littlefielu, 1 Wood. &: Mln., 13.— 1\. II., 1845. lleferred to, as col- lecting most of the precedents as to in- junctions. Hovey v. Stevens, 1 Wood. k Min., 304. — Mass., 1840. Approved, as to rules governing issuing of injunc- tions. Orr V. Merrill, 1 Wood. & Min., 379. — Me., 1840. Approved, tliat mere possession of a patent is not alone cause for injunction. Mitchell v. Barclay, MS. — N. Y., 1800. Approved, as to the principles governing allowance of injunc- tions. Hussey v. WliUeley, MS. — Ohio, 1801. 1'auker v. Corbin, 4 McLean, 402. — Ohio, 1848. Criticised, as at variance with Parkerv. Hulme, 7 West. Law Jour., 41 7. — Pa., 1 849 ; Parker v. Ferguson, 1 Blatchf., Siw--.., ,acc. till*'': 1 1 > ^rj'Mi'yyfewu «i-*j" .!',vv .'•pill % '• ■ !, ■1:.;;,'^:. TAIJLK OF CASES, C. OAHKS ArFIUMED, 0IUT1CI8ED, ETC. 407.— N. Y., iti4U. Parker v. Sears, >IS. — I'll., IH.'Jd. TaUKKU v. rKIKHSON, 1 1 '"l.ltcllf., -M)7. N. Y., lH4i». ('riti(M.s('-«, .M.S.— I'a., 1850. Paukkr v. IIulme, 7 West. Law Jnur., 417. — Pa., 1847. Criticised, as at variance witli Parker v. Corhin, 4 McLean, 4(il.'. — Ohio, iH4b; antS. I'ltrker v. Fenjnson, 1 Bhitchf., 407.— N. Y., 1849. Porker v. Sears, MS.— Pa., 1860. Parker v. Banker, fl McLean, CHI. — Oliio, 1855. Approvcil, as to rule of damages hiid down in it. Wiutcrmute v. Redliu/ton, MS. — Ohio, 1850. r'ARKiruRSTf. Kinsman, 1 Phitchf., 488. — N. Y., 1849. .\i)i>ppvcd, that a change in the form of a machine is not inven- tion. Wilbur V. Peecher, 2 J'.latchf, 141, 1 4 L'.— N. Y., 1 850. Aflirnied by Supreme Court. Kiii>tuian v. Parkhurst, 18 IIow., L^89.— Sup. Ct., 1855. Approved, that i'npevfe'it experiments will not stand in the way of a subsequent oiigiiial inventor. Potter V. Wilmn, MS.— X. Y., 1800. Parsons v. Barnard, 7 .John., 144. — X. Y., 1810. Approved, that the Federal courts hf.vc exclusive cognizance of suits for iiifi'injfements of p.atents. IJrinqston v. Van Lifjen, 9 John., 582.— N. Y., 181^'. Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 Paige, 134. — N. Y., 1840. Smith v. Mercer, 4 West. Law Jour., 5.3.- Pa., 184G. Partridge v. Menck, 2 Sand. Ch., 622. — N. Y., 1846. Affirmed, that an injunc- tion to restrain the use of a traJiMjiark will not be granted, when 'hi! inMXvXhya ".j i t sucli as to deceive a pu.'t ! .us r ■ jlng >' r \i r.it- f) attention. F-j fridge \. M . 'k, 'I Ii;)rV). j Ch., 101.— N. V"., 1847. A;.;.ro/(.f, umt the question upon the viohition o. h trade- mark is not whether the party j^ tlic in- ventor of the thing sold, but (h'pends upon th(! fact of npin'opriatiiiii and use. /V/- rid;ie v. Merchant, 4 Abb. Pr., 100.— \. Y, 1857. pARTRiDdE ('.Menck, How., App. Cas., 547.— X. Y., 1848. A|.i)rovcd, that a party using a triidc-mark, though the pur- chaser of it, to j)ahn olf ujxmi the public an article made by himself as made by another, is guilty of a fraud, and cannot be protected in the use of such in.ark. Fctridf/t V. Merchant, 4 .\bb. Pr., 157. — X. Y., 1857. Fetrid. Ct., 1829. Approved, tliat the words "known and used," in the act of 179:5 re- fer to the apvlication for a patent. Whit- ney v. Emiuett, P.ald., .'JOG. — Pa., 18;il. Approved, that under the act of 179.1, if an inventor makes his discovery public be tore application for a p.ntent, he abandons his inchoate right to his exclusive riirht. Grant x. Raymond, Pet., 248.— Sup. Ct., 18:i2. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Pet., .318.— Sup. Ct., ? 333. Approved, that the .vords " not known or used before tlie a{)plie!i- ti(jn" in § 1, act of 1793, mean not known or used by the public before tlie applica- tion. Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 598, 599.— ^Fass., 1841. Approved, th.at the use of an invention before application for a pat- ent, with approbation of the inventor, ren- ders void a patent. Cooper v. Matthews, J Law Rep., 420.— Pa., 1842, and that such use without objection is an abandon- ment. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How., 207.— Sup. Ct., 1843. Keferred to as '\ W% I TAIILK OF CASt:S, O. C'AHK8 At'l'lltUEU, CIUTICISKU, KTC. a Ifiidiiij^ ciiHO upon qui'stion <»f a^nif^fi- tioii or rcIiiKiuisIiiiiciit of patent piivi- lc';^i'», resulting tVuni avowed intention, nl>anwU:1 SC, \i r4^ w wf ■•• V w ■V. "^w* TAIJLE OF CASES, C. OASKH Art'IKMKI), CUITICIilKP, KTC. .1' v: nsHijjfiicc'M, wiiR not iliroctly raiseil, but was disciifscJ in this cu»e. JJlmich. (Juii-Slock Turniiiff Co. v. Warner, 1 IMatcIif., -'70. — ("t., 1840. Smith v. Klv, 5 Mclx'ari, 7fi. — Oliio, IHK). lieiiiaiKlcd, as tlic (lui'stiniis arisiii;.' tlierein wore virtually dccidtul in (yjiril/i/ V. Morsr, 15 How., &2. Smith \. Elij, ir» Hew., 142.— Sup. Ct., 185.1. Si-KAK V. Sti'Akt, MS.— D. ('., 1859. Approved, as to doctrine of forfcituro. Deryv. Thistle, MS.— D. C, 1800. Ap- proved, that tho foiiccahnont of an inven- tion for more than two year.-*, stands on no better .loting tiian a sale for same period. Loi ridgo v. Dutchcr, MS.— D. C, 1801. Stimpson v. West Ciikstkr J!. H., 4 IIow., .380. — Sup. ('{., 1845. Approved, that tlie action of tlie govi rnnient, in re- newing a patent, is conclusive except as to fraud. Brooks v. Fhke, 15 How,, L'liH. — Sup. Ct, 1853. Dis. <»pin. Approve.l, that the use of an invention, uncK'r a defec- tive patent, docs not prevent tiie patentee from taking out an amended patent. Battin V. TiKriert, IV How., 84.— Sup. (.'t., i854. Stokks v. LANooRAFr, J V i'arli. S. C, COS.- X. Y., 1853. Approved, that no property can be aoipiircd in words, marks, or doviccs, wliich denote only tlie nature, kind, or quality of the articles to which aflixed. Wolfe v. Goulard, 18 How. I'r., 68.— N. Y., 1859. Sturtevant v. GnEENOt'oii, MS. — D. C, 1860. Approved, as to doctrine of forfcituro. Berg \. Thistle, MS.— 1). C, 1800. Sullivan V. Redfield, 1 Paine, 441, — N. Y., 1825. Approved, as to rules and principles governing allowance of in- junctions. Thomaf V. Weeks, 2 Paine, 97. — N. Y., 1827. Tatham v. Le Roy, MS.— N. Y., 1 849. Held that the ciaira in plaintiff's patent was for the combination of machinery deseribud ; and that the q'lestion, whether tho newly discovered property of load, of welding after being Hcjmrated, was patentable, was nnt in this case. l,c Ito'/ v. Talh'im, 14 How., 175.— Si-p. ( 't., 1852. Tavloh ('. ("AarK.NTKU, 11 Pjkige, 293. — N. Y., 1844. Approved, that a Court of Equity will protect a person in the pos- session and use of his trade-mark. Tmj- lor V. Corpenhr, 2 Sand. Ch., 012, 013. — (Ct. Krrors), N. Y., 1840. Also, that aliens are entitled to like j)rotection in that re- spect, as citizens. J hid,, 010. Ta.I.OK v. CAHI-KNTKIt, 3 StiUT, 458. — Mass., I84t. Defectively reported in 7 Mo. I.aw Rep., 437. Coats v. llolbrouk, 2 Sand. Ch., 590.— X. Y., 1845. Ap- proved, that aliens arc entitled to protec- tion, as to trade-marks, tlu^ same as citi- zens. Tii'jlor V. Corjtenter, 2 Wood, it Min., 10.— Mass., 1840. Cnffnn v. Brun- ton, 4 ^b-Lean, 620.— Ind., 1849, TuoY Ikon Si Nail Fao. v. Cornino, 1 niatehf., 407.— N, Y., 1849. Revo'sc.l, on the ground of a misconstruction of the agreement, as to which the action was brought, and the nature of t!;r ughts un- der it. Trog Iron tO A^d/i Fac, v. Corni '.j, 14 How., 193.- Sup. Ct., 1852. Tyler v. Tokl, Cra., 324.— Snp. O , 1810. Criticised, as to ri/ht of assignci •. tif a pati'ut, to maintain an action for ii tVingeineiit, and distinguished from tV case under consideration. Whittemore \ Cutler, 1 (Jail., 431.— Mass., 181.3. Van Hook ?. Scrni.ER, MS.— N. Y. 1 843. Approved, as to right of an admin isfrator to take an extension of a patent Brooka v. Birkndl, 3 McLean, 438.— Ohio, 1844. Also 3 Story, J 32. Van O.stuand x<. Reed, 1 Wend., 424. — N. Y., 1828. Approved, that a note given for the purchase of a patent, wliioh is useless, is without consideration. Jul life V. Collins, 21 Mo., 341.— Mo., 185S, Wahu Mas.s., 1 1 tioii need the draw relcrence.« A'mersoH 1845. U in confori tribunals, ( jily to proi V. Sizcr, S \Vatho.> Pft., 1820. no unaiithi out daniag 104.— Mas- Wktmok 515.— X. ' court will II private K-tte bute of a Ii iVeKenzie, 3 Kxaniined, ; the decision V. McKenzii\ vate letters tliey poss((.>,!J t TABLE OF CIASES, C. 87 OAHKH ArnilUID, OHITK^IHKI), KTU. WABiiiirRN V. UotrLi), 3 Story, 122. — Mas.H., 1H14. Appi'iivt'il, that ii H|ii!(:it!cii- tioit need iiutcuntHiii wiitti'ii n>fi!ivii<'i>H to till' (li-iiwiiij^N, hut it will sulllcc if surh ri'tcrriiccs aro on tho ilrawiii^s thi'iimi'lvcM, A'mcrnon v, J/oi/(/, 2 IJIatcht'., l(). — N. V., 1845. Uiilu ill, aH to tiie ooiiiity of oDiirtH in coufurniiiig tu thu licciHionH of Hitter trihiinals, I'oiiiiiicntod on,aiia|)- j)ly to |>roi;ecdiii;^s for injuuctioiiM. Manif V. Sizer, MS.— Mass., 1H40. Watson v. Bladkn, 4 Wash., r)80. — I'a., 1820, SuHtainod, that thoio i-aii he no imaiithonzfd use of a patciit-ri^^ht with- out (himai,'!,'. Byam v. Uullard, 1 Curt., 104.— Mass., 1862. • Wktmoiik /'. ScoviLLK, 3 Edw'. Ch., 515.— N. y., 1842. Approved, that a court will not restrain tho pulilication of private letters, where they possess tio attri- bute of a literary eoniposition. Ifoyt v. McKenzie, :t Uarh. Cii., ;325.— N. Y., 1848. Kxaniiued, aud criticised, ami held, that the decision therein, as also that in Jfoi/l V. McKenzie, that the publicatiijn of pri- vate letters will not be restrained, unless they posschsed the character of literary compositions, was u departure from estal)- lished law, and not a binding authority. Woolney v, Judd, 4 Duer, 389, 406.— N. Y., 1855. WiiKATON V. Peters, 8 Pet., 591. — Hup. Ct., 1834. Criticised as to the cxt<;nt of copyrif^ht in reports, and how far one per- son is at liberty to extract the substance of sncli reports, or publisli select casi's therefrom, with notes. Oray v. Russell, 1 Story, 20.— Mass., 1839. Held, that the principle of this case is, that under the copyright laws, a title is not perfected without a strict compliance with the pro visions of the statute. Baker v. Taylor, 2 Blatchf., 84.— N. Y., 1848. Wjiittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall, 429, 478.— Mass., 1813. Approved, that the making u tnachino, to be an ofTenee, munt be with intent to use it for protit, and not for philoHophical experiment. Sawin v. Unild, 1 (iail., 487.— Mass., 1813. Over- ruled, that counsel fees cannot be allowed as a part of the danntges in an action t\(). ni;«m- ir V. AfcQiirwnti, 14 |[o\v., .'540. — Sup. Ct., IH.Oii. I']\pl;iiiii'il, as to the opiiiioim of the diHsciiI'mi!: jiidtjes, on pa^je 4H7, tl leq, PhdjiH V. Coinntock, 4 Mer.eaii, ;<.5.'5. — lud., 1H4H. ('ritieiseiO.— Mass., 1855. Critii'i.sod, as to apparent decision therein, that under the act of 18^0 the riglit of assignees in the original patent is limit- ed, under an extension, to the use of the machines in use at the time the e.xtension took place, and held, thatsucli precise cpie.s- tion did not arise in the case, and was not r.ccessarily decided in it. Day v. Union Rub. Co., .S Blatchf., 498.— N.Y., 1 850. Ex- \ amined, as to the (onstruction given to the \ term " renewal." Poller v. Holland, MS. • — I.VGERSOLL, J, ; 1858. Wilson r. Sandford, 10 How., 99. — Sup. Ct., 1 850. Approved, tliat contracts aH to patented niaeliineit are regulated hy tttiitt! lawM, not by tliuao of thu United States. lUoomtr \. AfcQiitwoii, 14 How., n.^iO. -Sup. Ct., 1852. Appro\.d, that a patent, higned hy an " acting CommiH- sloiier," is good. York d* Mitrijl, It. li. [v. Win>int,n IIow., 41.— Sup. Ct., 1854. WiLHoN r. Si.\!i'5)os, How., loo. — Sup. Ct., 1H40. Ueterred to, as involving till' points that an action to restrain the unlawful use of a machino may ho iiiNti- tuted in the district where the owner is, except when necessary to proceed against the iiiai'liine itself, when it should ho hrought where the machine is located. W'ihon Y.Shermini, 1 15latchf.,541.— N.Y., 1H5(), Kxamiiicd, as to the apparent de« cisidji, that the right of assignees of an original patent is limited, under a renewal thereof, to the use of the partif nlar ma- chines in use at the time the extended term commenced; and held that such pre- cise ijuestioii did not necessarily arise in the case. Day v. Union Bub. Co., 3 Blatchf., 40;J.— N. Y., 1856. Wii-soN V. 'PriiNKU, 7 Law Hep., 527. — Md., 1845. Allirnied. Wilson v. Turner, 4 How., 712.— Sup. Ct., 1815. WiNANS V. lioSTON & I'llOV. R. R., 2 Story, 412. — Mass., 184.'l. Kxplained, as to the position that a new application is not entitled to a pulont. Jfnlchkisn v. (/rcenwood, 11 How., 270., Dis. Opin. — Sup. Ct., 1850. WiNANH r. T)KffMKAn, 15 How., 830. — Sup. Ct., 1855. .Approved, and held not to conflict with ()' Ileillij v. Morse, 15 How., 62 ; and Corninr/w Jhirden, 15 How., 208.— Sup. Ct., 1853. Singer v. Walms- /r//, MS.— Md., 1859. Reconciled with McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How., 402,— 1857, as to the right of an original in- ventor to invoke the doctrine of equiva- lents. Ibid, W^ooDWORTii V. Rogers, 3 Wood, k Min., priiieijiici tion of (u Ay, .NfS.- NV'ooDM .Mass,, IH of thu Con render <.f one, is con llrooks v. lH5;i. Ap "acting C., valid. Sini 5;l.— I'a., 1 entee eaniKi patent, affce whom ho In '■its withoi llollinid, .M.v WoCDWOI -Sup. Ct., mliniiiiiHd'afoi TAULK OF CASKS, C. 89 UAiM ArrmiiHU, ORrriciHHi>, irro. i:i:>. — Mum., 1HI7. AppMVcd, a;* t'l thti |iiinri|ili'H^i>viiiiiniHsioner" will In- preHunied valid. Smith V. i\fnrii;i \Vi >t. I.aw .Imir., ,s;l. Pa., IHKI. Approvetriition in any Nuit ho may institute, W'lHxlirnrth v. Jfull, 1 W I. ,^- Mill., 251.— Mass., iHtH. Kx- plained, that the ipieslion whether ('on- ^resH eiui ),'raiit in an ' \tension ri^jhtH to assij^nees, wan not directly raiseil in thin case, lint wan disitiissed. Illnin-h. (inn- SlucK- Tiiriiinj Co. v. \l'i(nin\ 1 niatehf., L'7H.— Ct., IHIO. WvKTii I'. HriiNK, 1 Story, 27n. — Mass., iHlo. .\pproved, that a patent niiiy cover a ei>iiiliiiiatii>n, and also iiirliide a ri;{iit to each di>tiii' t ini|)rovemcnt. J'itla v. niil/innn, 2 Story, (Jl'I. — Mass., 1843. Kxaniincd, and explained as to aliovc posi- tion. A'ini'r»iin v. //(»////, 'J I'lliitchf., H. — \. v., 1845. Ifiii/f; V. Kmvrson, Mow., 4m:j. — 1817. Approved, a.^ to same positi:w\».. 'wp' ■>-•.' ''»'Vf| ^V¥ 'ytf\ WW> •B5 I ^^ jgrl Li i "«4 i\ A. Or Cop II. Orixvf 1. /i 2. A 3. L 4. r C, Of 1u.u A. Of Ci '^1 ;:*4s xi&j- "«•*.: 1. TllBd, work ill a p Navy J)t'j);ii chart ii pub may CKpy. 390.— 'I'lioM 2. Tl.c lb autlior, for t not ail al>;in( Jiartlett \, ( — MoLkan, 3. Nor dfl it hy penult take coj)ii's t 4. The pi out liavini; ,S( icaiion of it been floiio, i Bartktt v. ( — 3IcLeax, , I. r ^k». DIGEST. ABANDONMEm. 01 A. Or CoPTRtrtiiT on Manubckipt , B. Orl.NVKNTlOV. 1. liffitre J'atetil granUJ 92 2. After I'aU ,t ijniHted. 05 3. Dvfth-tof; lelio to iUeuit, 00 4. Proof oj , 07 C. Or Tiudk-Maukn 07 Ai Of Cot'YiuiiiiT OB Manitkohift. 8. Tlie right of proij>orty In a inanu* «f'rii>t may he t raiisiVrrcd of ubumlonod, the Slum* UK any oiliof right of jiropor- ty. [hid, \\. 0. An lU'tiuii'soencc in the ]nil)lioiition of II tnMUUMcript, or in th*- reiiiil)lic!iliou of 11 jirintcMl book, iiullioriz.s u proHiunp- tiiin of aM»«ignmunt or ubunduiniiunt. Ibid., 41. 7. IJut u gift of a copy of a innnu- ftoript i» t»ot a transfi-r of tho rlgf ', "T 1, TiiK (h'posit, by the autlior, of liiH I :iii ahiuiib.nnu'nt of it, any nioro than work in a piiblio uflicc, as a rhart in tiic j the gift of a copy of a prinletl Iiouk is a Navy Dojtartnicnt, «Kjos not mako sucli j transfor or abandouinont of tho cxclu- chart a piiblit; «h)cnint>nt wliiili any one | sivo right to repiib(ii of instruction, i^ not an aban(h)ninent of it to tho publie. Bnrtlrtt \. Crittetuh'tiy 4 aMcLoan, 30.']. — McLicAX, J. ; Ohio, 1847. 3. Nor does ho al)an(h)n his right in it by pcnnittihg his pupils or frionds to take copies thereof. Ihid., 303, 304. cation of liis inamiscript. Hut iniless a copyright is secured, the lirst pul)lica- tion of it will abandon it to the public. Pnlte V. Derby, 6 3IcIa an, 332. — Mc- Lean, J.; Ohio, 1852. 9. The publication of an ofticial re- port, until T the direction of Congress,, and for the benefit of the pid)lic, is a dedication of it, and of what is contain- 4. Tho publication of a work with- ed in it, to the public, and .any one niay out having soeuretl a copyright is a ded- ication of it to the public ; that having been done, any one ntay republisli it. Barthtt v. Cn'ttnub-ii, 5 McLean, 37. —McLean, J.; Ohio, 1849. ro}>riiit it. I/iiiic v. ApplcUms, 4 lilalchf. — Inueksoll, J. ; X. Y., 18.57. 10. Where sketches and drawings were made for the goveriunent, and in corporated in such a report, IIM, that aur ^r - ■ ■■^,v aTTL i%fift *^« i3*!*;*^C ytii o nrk i^.M ■"H«»g i'U^ i VMIf^ m S^w IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^ M/ 1 1.1 1.25 iAai2.a 12.2 1.4 ii.6 6" V vf' ^s <^# Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WE^T MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 M ^\ ^% s\ mm ,-'te jLSI SI5.1 ■ii-1 00 ABANDONMENT, B. 3. or INVEKTIOV. KBrKNOB OF; WHO TO PKCIDK. >• n^ H'^' d§ 4. A J'ortiori, the doctrhio will ap- ply to II (!ii«c, where tho patcntoo lias openly ('iK'oiinnjcil, or Nilftifly ac(pu- csccil in HHoh use, by the very ublic notice of iho nature and extent of his allowance, so that the public may bo on their guard. Ibid., 283. v. A court of oqnity will not inter- fere, in behalf of a patentee, either to grant an injunction, or to give him any relief, in respect to any alleged violatit)n of his patent, if, afler having obtained his i)atent, he has surrendered or dedi- cated it to tho public, or acquiesced for a long period in the public use thereof, without objection — as his own conduct may be considered as having led to such use, or application, or acts of the de- fendants. Ibid., 282, 284, 8. A citizen patentee cannot lose his right by 7ion-iiser, uidesa it amounts to evidence of aji abandonment of the patent ; the question of abandonment is a question of fact for a jury on a trial at law. Hildreth v. Heath, MS. (App. Caa.) — CitAxcn, Ch. J. ; D. C, 1841. 9. If a patentee neglects, in his speci- fication, to assert his invention as to a certain part, and omits to claim specifi- cally such part, and suffers his patent so to stand for a number of vears, he cannot allerwanl surrender it, and take a reissue, claiming such part, as llie use under the former patent, with- out any claim, will be a dedicition thereof to the public. lidtteii v. 2\ig- gci't, 2 Wall.; Jr., 102.— Kank, J. ; Pa., 1851. [Overruled, \HrA,p(>at 10.] 10. The decision of the court below in this case, as to a dedication of an in- vention by a description of it in the 8j»ecification of a former patent, unac- comp.'uiied by notice that he was right in it, or desires to secure those rights, is erroneous. I5y the defects mentioned in tho statute, and to remedy winch a surrender and reissue is pi rmitled, nothing passes to the public from the specifications and claims, Avilhin tho scope of the p.atentee's invention. Bat- ten V. Taggert, 1 7 How., 83, 84. — Mc- Lkax, J.; Sup. Ct., 185 1. 11. A patentee, subsequent to his patent, may abandon his invention to the public, and waive tho exclusive privileges secured to him ; and the jury may infer such an abandonment from an acquiescence in the use of his inven- tion by others, a neglect to assert his claims by suit or otherwise, an omis- sion to sell licenses, a neglect to make efforts to realize any adv.antage from his patent, and similar circumstances. Ilanaoni v. Mayor, &c., New York, MS. — IIaix, J; N. Y., 185G. 12. An inventor may abandon his right to a patent, as well after patent granted as before, but in the former event it would require a strong case to be made out. Bell v. Daniels, MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1858. 3. Defence of ; who to decide. 1. The question of dedication is one for the consideration of the jury. Whit- m issue, ai ABANDONMENT, IJ. 3. n: or iNriMTioK. oiriNCfc or; wiio to dicidi. tetnore v. Cutter^ I Gull., 482. — Stout, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. It slioiiKl ahviiyH lie n qiicstion KiibinitteJ to tlu.' jury, what was the in- tent of the (K'lay t)f tho jtatcnt, uiid whether tho allowlnu^ the itivoiition to bo nsi'il without a jiatent, shouM not be concidcrotl an abandonment or prcseiit of it to the |)id)lie. Jforrin v. //>iii(i/i(/- ton, 1 Paine, 354. — Thomtson, J. ; N. v., 1824. 3. The (|uostion which generally arises at trials is a question ol" faet, ratiier than of law, whether tho acts or aequiescence of tho party furnish in tho j^iven ease satisfactory jiroof of an abamloiunent or dedication of the invention o the jtub- lic. But when all the facts are given, there does not seem any reason why tho court may not state tho legal con- clusion deducible from them. Pennock \.Dliilo(fi(ef 2 Pet., IG. — SrouY, J.; Sup. Ct., 1829. 4. If a defendant, in an action for an infringement of a pateiit, wisli to avail Linist If of the defence of abandonment or acquiescence of the plaintitt' in the public use of his invention, ho must set forth such defence in his answer, and put it in issue. If the point i.i not put in issue, any evidence as to it will bo iirelevant, and cannot be looked to. Wyeth V. Stone, 1 Story, 284.— Stouy, J.; Mass., 1840. 5. Theiiucstion of forfeiture or aban- doiunent, is a question of fact for a jury- on a trial at law. Hlldreth v. ITeatli, jMS. (App. Cas.) — Cbaxoii, Ch. J. ; D. C, 1841. 6. Under g 7 of the act of 1830, tho question of delay or abandonment is not submitted, to the jurisdiction of the commissioner of patents in deter- mining as to the issuing of a patent. Ibid. [Qualified, 1 85 8, 2iost 13.] 7. When an abandonment is rolied on, it sho\dd be statei\\ M.s. (App. Cas.)— MoKSKLL, J. ; U. C, 1855.) 12. Whether an inventor lias aban- doned or surrendered his invention, au?•( ■^vVl S3 n- w^t... J, / LLa^ ^wwWi • 'i It, —i. ij -. ^;^p;st^i,Wii- Wf ' >;.:2r*! '♦* ■••^1- i^\ 0t AHANDONMENT, C— ABIUIKJMKNT OF IJOOK, or TBADB*MAMCI. WHAT II; WHIN MO I'lKAcr. tlon of the roininis>4ioii(>r, in (l('c'nliiif» nH to tln) isHiiiiij; of a psiti'iit, in that of ilclay or j^ciiciul :ili;iiiil(tiim('ril, atnl which iiitt'iiiioii nixi s|i(>('i:tl circiiin- BtfUici'M cotiHtitiitc. Mtnn'if v. ffurhcr, MS. (Api.. Cas.)— MoKrtKi.r,, J.; 1). C, It. Kilt as to th(! nhaM(h)Miii(Mit or fttalutoiy ilisaiiility of an a|)|)Hrant to asBort hin right to a patent, because of a piihlic UHe or sale by others, with his kno\vh'\}. Cas.)— DuNLOP, J. ; I). C, 1 800. to the UMO or iinita'ion of his Iradn mark nuiy be inferred from hi knowl- edge and silence; but such I'onsenf, whether express or implied, may be withdrawn ; it is no more than a revu- cable liconKe. Amuaktaij Mnmif. Co., V. Spear, 2 Sand., S. C, 015.— DirRu, J.; N. Y., 1840. The neglect of a party to carry on his business under its well-known name, for a numb'r of years, does not pre- vent him fV(Ha resuming the same, or entitle another to tise the name of his business. JIow« v. iSeariiifj, 10 How. IV., 25.— lIoPFMAV, J.; N. Y., 1800. Though a trade-mark may have been used previously, if its iise has been so long discontinued nH to justify tin; in- ference that it had I . in abandoned, it may be taken up by another dealing in the same article, whose rij.,ht will he protected if used exclusively by him, and long enough to bo roeogiii/.ed as the indicia of his ownership. (■onpin\. Ihthj, Tpton on Trade-i^Iarks, 190.—. KouEKTsoN, J.; N. Y., 1800. AIJKIDGMENT OF BOOK. 4. Proof of See EviDExcE, II. 1. C, Of Tuadk-Mauks. The acquiescence of a nianuf.icturer 1. The (piestion as to an abridgment is made uj) of various considerations; whether it is a honajide. .abridgment, or only an evasion by the omission of un- important pa: ts ; whether it will pre- judice or ' .ipcrsede the original ; whe- ther it will be adapted to the same class of readers, ifec. Gray v. Russell, I Story, 19.— Story, J. ; Mass., 1830. 2. The doctrine that an abridgment is not a piracy of the original copyright must be received with many qualifica- tions. Ibid., 19, 20. .•I. A of an ( llie coi fair and t'leinos cin-uuiNi V. ^rart J.; M;.N 4. A I rangeme so as to '■ompass, 'I'lierc nil sat ion i»f labor an<| Ibid., 107 .'■•. If til abridge a and ih.'it I done, it is by I he ow I'liiicipal u| iIk^ abrid- coiorabh' o I'i>iO( rs, 2 "I KV, J.; ('• An ;i epitoiiu' priiiciplcs "ligiiial b(, combr^ 4 J\I( IH47. 7. A me raiigenient "■ork, so as COIllp.'lSS, in "lUst be re "f the ni.atel and jndgiiK "<>t merely f or extracts stituting the work, nid 8. A fair considered a of ••.♦ AUUIDGMKNT. 09 WHAT M; WliaN NO PIRAflT. 3. A fiiii" imtl honit Jiile nl>ri I'op} ri'^lit ; Ixit wliul coiistitiitoH a fuir iiiul liimtijhlt' :ilK'if tlio must ilitliriilt pniiitN, uiiih'i- piirliniliii' ciirunisfaiici'H, that «'iiu ariMc. l'\>lHnin V. Miirxh, J Story, 100, 107.— Htouy, J.; Mass., iHtl. 4. A im <•>> Ni'ltu-tioii, or (liir«>ivtit fir- r»ii;;t'nuriil;^iiH>iit. 'I'licrc must ))(> r«>al, Niiltstanlial (>oii price, aiul tliat by nu-ntal lalxu' is faithfully (l(»uo, it w no ^rnuind for a pros«'(Milion l»y the owner of a eopyrij^ht of tho principal work. Hut it is iotra, '2 Wood. & Min., 520.— Wooo- lUKV, J.; IMass., 1847. 0. An abridxercis(! of the mind ; it is not copying. T '?^*«»\iv 'U* <,' ;^\ i^i' ± L ^1 ACCOITNT OF ruDriTS. WIIKII URIIHHHI); WHAT AC'UOIJNTKI) rOH. 15. Till' fMriiicr liifriiiiji'"* lln« ('i»|>y- ri,i;lit, if I III' iiiattiT tratisiTilii'il, wlini |iulilis)i('(i, mIiuII itii|i:iii' tli.> value of tliu ori;;iiial Itoolc ; u (air ulM-iilgiin'iit, tliiiii;;li it may iiijiiru the urigiiiul, U lawful. Ihi,!., :iU. 10. Till' al>riil};ini'iit of a W(»rk, for whieli ft t'()|>yrij4lil lian hwn Hi'otirt'il, (itiil wliii'li li:iH Ix't'ii pulilicly cirriilatuil, iri af law to a^MOH"* fho ilainn^cM, Atten v, Jilii/if, I Illalrhf, 4«0, 4»7.— Nki.ho.v, J.; N. Y., 1H40. •i. Till' ilcfciKliUit in rvii nlcil iim hav- ing ItCfll !.l till) IIMO aiul UlljoyiMl'Ilt of till- |iro|i<'rty of tlii' patctitfr, aiil an lir- iii<; Ixiitml ill t'<|iiity to acroiiiit for lliu profltH. l/»i(l., 4M7. 8. An ovriii'r of an iniiliviili'il intor- not .•III iiifriiiiTonu'iit of tin' sfatulory ' <'sf in a patnit in.uUi an a^xrci'inciit with jirivili'jic; but nucIi an aliiii|;^iiu'iit would llic pati'iili'o as to ilirir l»fcoinin;^ joimlv violate tlic rijjht of the liierary proprii tor of ft hook of wliicli llie ciriMiI.alion li:i(l Itceii privafe only, /x'ecnev. U7(«''m in tlu' m:irk«'t, witli ii view to tluuimount i»r|»n>(ilH. /A/*/., fll'J. 0. WluM't' uii iiil'iiii;^iMiu'iit is i'li'iir, aixl till' ri;{lit to an iiijtiiirtion iiituiili'Mt, at) injiiiiftioii will not lio Htayoil, on llut (|»'f«Miilaiitn' ^riviiij^ Htu-iirity, ami n-ndi-r- ing a |K'rio(lical ai'niiiiil of llu-ir nalos, t'ViMi thoii^li till! ili-f\'iiilaiit Im II |ii'fHoii of iH'ciiniai'y ri'M|ioiiHil(ility. 'IVmy v. Torrry,'! nialilit'., '270.— Nki.hon, J.; N. Y., iH.-il. 10. A Miiil hl. B3. 12. In a bill filed for nn injunction, and for an aeeouiit of profits which had ac'i'iuod to the defendant from the use of the machines, which were an infrinj^e- luent upon the plaintilfs patent, the de- fendant Is accountable for such profits as he has actually made, and not for such as '* with due diligence and pru deuce" might have been m.ade. X/i'- iin/ston v. Woodioorth, l.*) How., 550; — Danikl, J.; Sup. Ct, 185,'}. l.T. An account of jirofits may bo docieed to the owner of a copyright, as incidental to an injunction, but it nuist be prayed for ; but it cannot in- clude pen;ilties. ASffvcns v. Cifdi/, 2 Curt.,'200,201.— Cl-KHs,.T.; U. T.,lH54. l-i. An account for profits, may be ordereir- t/<«itit V. f^iintal, 2 Curt., 310. -Cun- TiH, J. ; Mass., is.'i.'i. 17. ;\n agreement made withii patcn- teotonianiificture his patented machines upon certain conditions, and making and selling of such machines uiiib-r the patentee's title, estcips such party, in an action for ai-itount brought by tlio patentee, fi()m alleging the invalidity of the patent. Kiiisnmn v. I'tirA'/iurtit, IS How., 2',>:t.— Ct'iuis, J.; Sup. Ct., IH.'-).'). IH. AikI even if tho patent was in- valid, it would not have rendered tho sales cf the machines illegal, so as to releasi! such party from the obligation to account. I hid., 20!l. 10. And if such nn agreement was void, ,'is against public policy, it would fiiniifih no answer to !i claim for an ac- I'ount of profits reali/ed from tho busi- ness. Ihid., 204. 20. In the .\merican courts, in patent c.ises, a decree for an account may bo made, when an injunction will not bo granted. SkklcH v. Glou. Munuf. Co.^ .MS.— GijiKu, J.; N. J., 1850. 21. ^Vhencver tho subject matter cannot be as well investigated in an ac- tion for money had and received, or indehitittua assuvipsit, a court of eipiity exorcises a sound discretion in decreeing an account. Ifnd. 22. Commissions received from the sales of a printed copyright are profits \ -k • ■ ■ -^j 1 *.ij. m *44 i . L i^' ^^^k^ta^«#wW« 'BiBir .,ta^w^V: 109 ACTIUNS. AC fo oorTftioHTs AH» MkmimKun, wam wiu ui. 1 'i. ti. wliii'h miiKt Ik) o«*ooiiiiti>tl for by tli«> |Kirly Hi'lliii^ on coiiiiniitiiion, on u hill l»y (ln» |iro|)ri<'l<'r of lln> tM>|»yri;;lit. Uttiuna V. (itiiililinij, '1 Curl., OOH 6lo. — CiiitTiK, J.; |{, I., iH.MJ. 2'A, It U coratnon in t'UHi'of » |>il| lllcil for lUi infrin^cirifiit iirxl uiotioM ni:i for ;i |ii'i'liiiiiiiary itijiiiirtioti, wli«.>r(i tlio want««l. fJrint/Mhm v. Jnnm, 3 Wall, Jr.— Onikh, J.; I'li., IN«n. 'JH. An iirroiiiit titiiiint hi< r<'<|ii!r«>il unli"«i« mIhm'i' a kiioH IoI^i' of till' |ii-oliU niiidt' Ity till' iiifiiii^tr i>t ni'i'mnikry to a Jimt tiflcrniiniition of tliu controvoriijr. 2\). Whttri'Vi'r II ilrft'hilnrit |iri'<«i>ntii • ({iii'htiiiM of infi'in^t'rnt'hl in not nitknif«!<*t, cixno nIiowIm}; in fii«*l. it Imnn jlde ii«oi<> iiriil t'lijoinin^ tlii> tleffiiilant wonjil pro . of law, or ii primn J'ii<'ii< rifl[ht to fon- i!uc('h(ni(Mi(H> tintio liix iniiniifu-tiiri', ii pri'litninitry in- of Ills iHiHincxx, to witliliolil tli«> injnnc- Juiii'tion will not Im> ^nintnl, liut lin tioii on tlu) tlt>ri'Miluiii'.i ki't>|iiii^' an iic ' may l)t< ri><|nirfi| to ku«'|> iin iircount. count, or yivinj; niu-nrity for tliim!i>;«>K Hiiit. Tito pnu'ticu ia to t;ik(f tlio account tlowri to tijv time of the hcarini; hcforc the m;i^tcr, if ilio infriii;;eineiit continues to that porioi' therehy proventinj^ the nei'en.sity of ex- penso of a now suit. Il/Ul. 'J5. Ami Hucli account may he so coiitinuetl thouj:;h some of the det'erul- ants in ly have ceased to become liiihle; but in such caso their liubility should bo properly apportioned in makiiii; up the decree, and iiom? should lu. entert>d fo>' accriiiiij^ profits .■unjiust any one atVcr his liability cease*!. I/»i(/. 20. An account may bo ordered and other relief jjranted, thoii;;h for any rcasop, as tho expiration of the patent, an injunction to restrain its infriiij,'eiiieiit cannot issue. Ltilay v. Nor. 6. rieiuiinijs in 1 1.^> C. Is Resi'kct to Tuade-Mark8 115 A* An A.vi TO. Sen III I. At ntntiiiMcri tt"y one 1 deavorM t Ileal ion. 647.— .M. 2. \Vh. ti-tl in re ll '=11 . to ,.r«»lee| the aiiitio cojiyii^rlii account, n court of [n'occcd at //'irjtcr, .1 Cms, V ' 3. It is f^>nii the wlielhor iiii'orjiora Ills copyr tain an ad I Story, I ■i. To e tlio infring 'lot necess greater p: taken. If pair the , that the are substan will lie. 115. — Sroit 5. Tho ( tlie propert no defence ^U.*^A ACTIOVS, A. 108 Afl T«> OUPTMllliril 4MI> MANIM'HII-m WIIKK WII.I. ME A* AcTIONN KlIi'Ki'IiMt) CorvittOIITH AVU MANVMCItiflN, AMU DbKKNOKh TO. 8«'n nUo (^ouuTS, A.; KtjiriTY, A.; ISKUIMIKMKNI', A.; iMJDNt'lKtN, A. 1. At conirnon li»w flu* niillior of u iiiuiiiiMi'i'i|>t iitit) iililaiii rcitri'MH ikj^iiiiiMt lift) otic will* tU'|»rivoM iiiiii of if, or en- i|i>uvorM to ri- lit'ittion. W/teu/on v. I'lhrti, H IVt., •I.'VT.—Mi Kkan, .1. ; Sup. I'l., 1h:11. 'J. Wliin' » wnmji^ liuH Immmi t'oiiiniit- tt'«l in rt*N|M'i'i to u litcniry worit, Init tl ' 'II ilocH nut a.HJc an itijiiiiftlon til ,ii-«(ti>i-t tint coiniiioii liiw rights of tliu itiitlior, or tlif viiiititioti of nuy i'ii|iyri^ht h«>ciii-i>i|, Ittit only RHkit iiti ui'i'oiint, rnlri'HH I'liiniot Ix* Nought in ii court of »'<|iiity, Imt tlu' parly must |/ v. HukmiU, 1 Story, 10.— SjoKV, J.; Mass., 1H:»1). 4. To etititie a party to an adion for tho infringement of a ettpyrijjht, it is tiot nece«s;iry that the whoh', or u proater part of his M'ork shonld he taken. If su much is taken as to im- pair tlio value of the original, or so tliiit tho labors of tae original autlior are snV)stantially appropriated, an action will lie. Ftdaoni, v. Mamh, '2 Story, 115,— Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1841. 5. Tho entirety of tho copyrigltt is tho property of the author ; and it is no defenee that another has approjnua- ((•<] only A part nf mtch property nnd not the whole. ///!(/., I Iti. ti. If a eopyright haH been iiiXMiled, whether the parly kni'w iIk wurk waM eopyrighled or not, lie is liable to tho prniill_\ for violation. MilUtt v. Siinw liiti, I Wemt. Law Joiir., '2H). IIkith, J.; N. Y., iHi.i. 7. A defcinlant. may show that iho work eopyrighteil was not original with ihe author, or that il was an abre> viatlon or all«'ralion, ami the jury (>an deeidi- whelhcr it was ealeiilated to deeeive. ///<(/., '240. H. An ai'tion un l/te rune is the proper form of action to recover damages for a violation of a copyri'dit : tnt/xiMH will luitlic. AttPi'lly. l-\tr>tf, 2 IMatchf., 47, 4H.— Mkith, J.; N. V., lH4ti. 0. If the similituiidant is not liable /'Jnnrnon v. J)jpted measures to secure a «"oj)yright ibr a drama, but who has not fully completed such copyright, has no st.atutory right of reilress for an unauthorized theatrical representation of sutrh drama. JCeene V. W/it'(itft'i/, Am«.'r. Law Keg., 45. — CADWAf.r.Aiticn, J.; Pa., 1800. 20. If a play has never been printed, the liter.ary proprietor may, independ- ently of the statutes, maintain a suit for damages for its imauthori/.ed repre- sentation, if such representati(jn has not bei'u preceded by a representation by the proprietor. If the previous per- formanc y the proprietor has been the me.an.T of enabling the defendants to bring it out, no action will lie. Ibid., 49, 92. 11. I-v Respect to Patents. 1. Iliijht of action, and jmncipka (jovcrniny. See also Courts, B. ; Equity, B. 1 ; Injunction, B. As to what constitutes Infringement, see Comkination, B. ; Composition of 3Iattkr, C. ; Infi{inc.kmknt. B. 1. An action of infringement will lie for making a machine fit for use, .and with a design to use it for profit, even though there is no actual user, .and no actual d.amage ; the Law implies damage. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 431.-— Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1813. 2. But the making a patented ma- chine, merely for philosophical experi- ments, or for the purpose of ascertain- ing the sufliciency of the machine to produce its described effects, is not an infringement for which an action will lie. Ibid., i31. 3. T pl.'iintil nuMit o from br niont fo inachiiu irient. M.iss., 1 4. To an aclioi chine mi tlic patoi of the hi' Sawin V J.; Mas 5. A p for a viol what j)r tween Jiii interest ii made a le liis intere Little, 3 V Pa., 1813. G. A SI ciitee of action .ag; en tee of t his right. 430.— Sro 7. An.i ed on the claim no i tlie j)atent tion of tl action is t tlie patent tiiougli th special law law under is under th Jaw. Um 345.— V>-As [^QQpost 9 8. If au ac ic ^"3 m 3 •'•J ACTIONS, B. 1. 105 AS TO PATENTS. RIOUT TO ; PKINCIl'LES OF. n. Tilt! rccovci V of H viTilic't 1>y llic jilaiiitirt' in an action for tlio iiifrini;;"- inoiit of a pali'ut, will not iircvent liiin from brinj^iti^ anotluT art ion of infrinL,'o- nient for a future \jse of tlio (It'fciitlant's inaoliine; uvory future use is an infrincje- lucnt. S. (J., 1 Gall., 484.— Srouv, J,; Mas3., 181.3. 4. To constitute an offence for which an action will lie, the making of a ma- chine must bo with an intent to infringe! the patont-right, and deprive the owner of the lawful rewards of his discovery. tSawin V. Guild, 1 Gall., 480. — Stoby, J.; Mass., 1813. 5. A patentee is entitled to recover for a violation of his patent, no matter what private agreement subsists be- tween iVun and any other one, as to an interest in his invention, unless he has iiiado a legal assignment and transfer of liis interest in tlie invention. Park v. TJfth, 3 Wasli., 197.— Washington, J.; Pa., 1813. G. A subsequent inventor and pat- entee of a machine, cannot maintain an action against a prior inventor and pat- entee of the sr.Tue tiling, or oust him of his right. Woodcock v. Parker, 1 Gall., 439.— Story, J. ; Mass., 1813. v. An action for infringeme»>t is found- ed on the patent, and the plaintift* can claim no riglit vrhich is not included in tlie ])atont. The patent is the founda- tion of the action, and the gist of the action is the violation of a right which the patent has gr.intcd. And this even though the j>atent is issued under a special law, and is not as broad as the law under which it is issued — the right is under the patent, and not under the law. Evans v. Eaton, Pet. C. C, 340, 345.— Washixgtox, J. ; Pa., 181G. [See post 9.] 8. If an inventor do not choose to obtain a patent for liia invention, it be- comes public jiropcrty; and he can maintiiin no action against any one for^ using it. Ibid., 34S, 340. 0. In construing a patent, the in« tention of the parties, who are the gov- ernment and the p.atentee, is entitled to great consideration ; the act author- zing the issue of the patent, the petition for the issue of the patent, and the specification, may all be resorted to for such intention. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 600, 507. — ^Marshall, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 10. Where a plaintiff claims several distinct and independent improvements in the sarne m.achine, and procures a patent for them in the aggregate, ho is entitled to recover against any person Avho shall use any one of the improve- ments so patented, notwitlistanding there has been no violation of the other improvements. Moody v. Fiske, 2 Mas., 115, 118. — Story, J.; Mass., 1820. 11. Where a declaration goes for the user of a machine during a limited pe- riod, a verdict and judgment in such action is no bar to a subsequent action for a i-.ser during another and subse- quent period. Earle v. Saicyer, 4 Mas., 14. — Story, J. ; INIass., 1825. 12. Whether a patentee is ever re- quired to give notic(! to one actually using a machine In violation of his pat- ent, in order to maintain an .action against him, even though such machine may have been erected and put in use before the patent issued ; query. Ames V. Jfoioard, 1 Sunin., 488. — Story, J.; Mass., 1833. 13. Without obtaining a patent, a person has no exclusive right or privi- lege to make and sell the thing invented or discovered by him ; wit'.iout a patent, lilll ''-4*«^j ij ^mm ■-^^ i J j± iiUJ ;CVWWW twto.'w•^V^ ■'' 106 ACTIONS, n. 1. AH TO PATENT8. IIUIHT TO; I'RIKCII'I.KS Of. ) the T)rrht to make and sell is coininoii to all. Thompson v. Wini'htnUry 11) Tick., 210, 2lV.— SiiAW, Cii. J. ; Mass., IH.'J?. It. If another person niaki-i. such in- vention, of an inferior <|UAlity, and sells it, ami liy this means brinj^s tiie tliiiii^ into disrepute, the inventor ean main- tain no action, as there is no infrinfjje- nient of his rij^hf, nor recover damajjes, unless the person so makinirat- ical use of any one of his invented m»- ]trovemcnts, which is distiuotly stated in his patent, althoui^h he may liave in- cluded sometliing of which lie was not the original inventor. Pitts v. Whit- tnan, 2 Story, 021. — Srouv, J.; Maine, 1843. 17. A surrender of letters patent ren- ders void all assignments under such patent, so far as those are concerned who assent to such surrender. It is necessary that a prior assignee should have a new assignment, before he can maintain an action for an invasion of the p.atent. Gibson v. Jiiehards, Index Pat. Dec, No. 376. — Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1845. 18. In an act' >n at law for a breach of a patent, it is indispensable to es- tablish a brea a before the suit was brought. But in equity, a bill will lie for .in injunction, if the patent-right is admitted or established, upon well grounded proof of an ai)i)reliended in- tention of tho defendant to violate tho patent-right. Woodu'orth v. fStonr, 3 Story, 752. — Srouv, J. ; Mass., 1845. 11). An attempted pin-chase from tho defendants, of a piitented article l)y an agent of the plaintilf, and for the pur- pose of entrap|>ing the defendants, is not such a sale as will rend(>r them liable. Sjuii'kunDi \.Jlii/i/in,i,'2 lilatchf, ;t(), 31.— IJkitk, .1.; N. Y., 1840. 20. To entitle a plaint ill' to recover in an actioi i'l'f an infringement, tho jury must bo ti:itislied that tho inven- tion embra«'ed in the plaintiff's ])atenl is new and useful. The patent, however, raises the presuniption of the novelty and utili.y of the plaintiff's invention. Parker v. Stiles, 5 jSIcIiOan, 00. — Leav- irr, J. ; Ohio, 1849. 21. A contract to use a patented ma- ehiiu', during the continuance of the patent, and to pay therefor a fixed pro- portion of the value of the fuel saved thereby, will not support an action un- til tho expiration of the patent. Woah. Alex. 0. '.'.'). To Mii|)|t()rt nil at'tinii for a vio- liilinii of ii piitoiit, tliei'u iiiiiHt bo injury mill dunia;^!' ; injm'y '•>' Ji violation of llic i'i;j;):t, and daina^i*, ut. least nominal, nrcsunied hy law to arise from such violation. Jtynm v. Jiullanl, 1 Curt., 103. — CuKTis, J. ; JSIasH., iH.'j'i. 20. A sale of tlie thing palenti'd to an agent of the patentee, employed by him to make the purchase, and on ac- count of the patentee, is not an act from which iQ KL J'^^X '^i, • . '\^ Wn^ - *"H ^fi«- t "*i jH' l't«ii| •^M ^^^ S^'^ ^c^ fcT/ •ll^^ JTW^ i'J^S frlH lra 5^a 1^ S sSi i i wWwb^w'^ f ^wWO- r 108 ACTIONS, IJ. 2. AS TO I'ATKNTH. WllCIlt: BUOUdllT; UOVT COMMGNCKD. If.l' provemciit on the origiiiul and patcut- jiblo !i9 sucli. McCoi'mu'k v. 7'alcott, 20 How., 405. — GitiEu, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. no. It is competent for a patentee to enibnico two iinproveineiits on the same niacliino in the same patent, and if a person use8 either or both o^ the impnVvonients, he is an infringer. Mor- ris v. jBarrett, MS. — LEAvrrr, J. ; Ohio, 1858. 37. There is no act of Congress limiting the time in which a suit may be brought for an infringement of a ])atent-right, Parker v. JlallocJc, MS. — GiMKU, J.; Pa., 1858. 38. By statute, the remedy for an infringement of a patent is an action on the case; but an infringemont of a patent is a cause of action at common law, and tiie party injured may waive the tort and sue in assumpsit on the implied contract for the use of his property. Shreeve v. U. States, MS. — LonixG, J. ; Ct. Claims, 1859. 39. There m.ay be a claim for two inventions in the same patent, if they both relate to the same machine or structure; and an action can be sus- tained for the infringement of either one or the other of these separate in- ventions, where claimed as separate and distinct in their character. JJee v. Blandy, MS. — McLisan, Leaviit, JJ. ; Ohio, 18G0. 40. After a patent has been surren- dered, an action cannot be maintained for damages for an infringement oc- curring under the old patent, before the surrender. Moffitt v. Garr, MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 18G0. 41. Where a patentee has been ac- customed to grant the use of his inven- tion upon the payment of a license-fee, an action against an infringer is best brought at law, as the price or value of the license is the true measure of the actual damage sustained, and the C(mrt may treble the verdict, where the de- fendant has acted wantonly or vexa- tiously. Sanders v. Logan, 9 Amer. Law Ileg.,477, 478.— GuiKU, J.; I'a., 1801. 42. A patentee whoso invention is only valuJible because used by all who pay a license-fee, and who sutlers no other wrong than the det^iution of such fee, needs none of the remedies which it is the duty of the ch.ancellor to give for such protection. Liringaton v. Jones, 3 Wall, Jr.— Guiek, J.; Pa., 1801. 43. A court of law is his proper re- sort, the only remedy to which he is entitled being a judgment for a given sum of money, with interest ; and then he may recover a penalty to the extent of treble damages, if the judge sees fit to inflict it. Penalties and })unitive dam- ages can be recovered only in courts of law. Ibid. 2. Where to be brought and how commenced. As to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. See Courts, B. 2. 1. Proceedings by bill in equity, under § 16 act 1830, and § 10 act 1839, against the Commissioner of Patents, to compel him to issue a patent, must be commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Co- lumbia, and cannot be brought else- where. No tribunal out of the District has jurisdiction over the person of the Commissioner of Patents as such, and the Patent Office. Prentiss v. Ells- worth, 3Iir. Pat. Off., 36. — Randall, J.; Pa., 1840. 2. Consent of parties cannot confer jurisdici judgmei which it Dndfnj ' .Sl'JJO.MJ, 3. Wh for an inj a patent fondant i question such cons tion, and i on the g hatl no ju cases. 7"^ 4. Undi Circuit C have not jurisdietio the patent 5. § 11 , requiring c defendant, state whei not ajjply patent hn give jurisi process is defendant is brought clause of Blunt, 1 N. Y., 184 6. The the w^rit or the service made withi brought. 7. When license Ava was broug suit brougl iug the un that proc menced agi ^•^*fc»^ ACTIONS, D. 2. 109 AH TO I'A TKNTH. WIIKKK IIIIOUOIIT ; HOW OOMMKXCEI). jtiristliotioii, or rcinlcr ('(TfotuHl tho jiitlfjinciit of a tribunal in ii inattor of whicli it li:iH not by law any coi;nizanoo. Dmlhy V. Mayhcw, 3 Coins., 12-10. — SriioMi, J.; N. Y., iHtO. n. Wliero, therefore, a bill was filed for an iiijiinetion for an infrinfjftMnent of a patent in a state court, and tlio de- fondant stiinilated not to raise the question of jurisdiction. Held, that such consent could not confer jurisdic- tion, and that tho bill must be dismissed on the ground that the state courts hail no jurisdiction of acti'iis in patent cases. Ibid., 10-10. 4. Under !^ 17 of the act of 1830, tlie Circuit Courts of the United States have not only orUjlnal, but exduaive jurisdiction of all actions arising under the patent laws. Ibid., 14. 5. § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1780, requiring ono of the parties, plaintilT or defendant, to be an inhabitant of the state Avhere the suit is brought, does not apply to actions arising under the patent laws. It is only necessary to give jurisdiction in patent cases that the process is served personally upon the defendant in the district where the suit is brought, as provided by the latter clause of § 11 of that act. Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf., 486. — Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1840. 6. The return of tho marshal upon the writ or subpoena should state that the service of such writ or subpoena was made within the district where suit is brought. Ibid., 487. 7. Where an alleged violation of a license was in Vermont, and the suit was brought in New York, Held, in a suit brought for the purpose of restrain- ing the unlawful use of the machine, that proceedings were rightly com- menced against the party concor:iod i:i the infringement, and that the action could, under {5 11 of tlie .Fudidary Act of 1780, bo brought in the district where the defendant resided, or where ho might be found at the time* of serv- ing the writ. Wihon v. Shenmm, 1 JJIalehf., .>n .— Nki.sov, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 8. Jlut where it might become ne- cessary to proceed directly against the machine itself, as in extreme cases of contumat^y, or fraudulent contrivance to evade an injimction, tho proceedings should be instituted in the district where the machine is located. Ibid., 541. 0. Although the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts embraces cases both at law and in ccpiity, arising under the patent Laws, for infringements of letters- patent, without regard to the citizenship of tho parties, or the amount in con- troversy, the provisions of § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1780, as to the com- mencement of suits, applies to these cases as well as to others ; hence such a suit cannot bo brought in any other district than that whereof the defendant is an inhabitant, or in which he shall bo found at the time of serving the writ or process, and whatever the character of such proisess. Day v. Newark I. H. Co., 1 Blatchf., 630-632.— Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1850. 10. The right to attach property, to compel the appearance of persons, can properly be used only in cases in which such persons are amenable to process in personam, and in such case also an at- tachment against his prope'"ty cannot be issued, except as part of or together with process to be served upon his per- son. 7iu7., 630, 631. 11. In order to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Courts of the United States, the party defendant must be an inhabi- tant of the district in which the suit ia .•?i? ijljj^fj m. •II ■111 „/ ^^^^t >^. ^ ^ w^ L ■' v-;r.' ■■•^.W*7 Vfi 4 ■•Kl, 'iyW»'ta<'W K '••litfiyfiij «?. 1 J I 110 ACTIONS, B. 3. AH TO PATKNT8. I'ARTIKH TO; I'LAINTIfKH. M brniij^ht, or lie nnist ho found within it ut tliu lime of the si'ivii'c of this original l»ro('t'»H, and whati'vor njuy bo the na- ture (tr «'hara(tt('r of tlio process used. If»i(l., (i;il,();tii. 12. Where a corporation vas created by the hiws of New Jersey, and had its place of business in that state, but also had a store in New York, where its goods were soKl, and a suit was eoin- nienced against it in New York by at- tachuu'ut of its goods, and by service of jtrocess on its j)resident, wiio happened to be in New York, //»/(/, that the corjjoration was not an itdiabitant of New York, or found within it at the time of the service of the process, and that the court had no jurisiliction of the action. Ilnif., G'M], 13. The j)urchaser of an implement or macliine, for tise in the ordinary pur- suits of life, does not become possessed of a portion of the franchise or monopo- ly conferred by the patent — he exer- cises no right conferred by Congress ; but when the machine passes uito his hands it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly, or under the protec- tioii of the acts of Congress ; and if his right is infringed he must seek redress in the courts of the state, and accord- ing to its laws, and not in the courts of the United States or under the acts of Congress. Bloomer v. Mc Queioan, 1 4 IIow., 649.— Taney, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 14. A process of attachment, whether direct or foreign, by which the proper- ty of a defendant is attached, by virtue of state laws, cannot give the Circuit Court jurisdiction over a person not an inhabitant of, and not fotuid within the district. Saddler v. Hudson, 2 Curt., 7. — Curtis, J.; Me., 1854. 15. If a defendant is (^sucd out of his district he must pleatl liis personrd privi- lege. Toko v. /7«/yw, 1 iMeAllis., 17. — M(.'Am,I8TKK, J.; ('al., 1855. 1(1. Under }5 1 1 of the Judici.iry Act of 17H11, jurisdiction of the person of n defendant ('vho is an iidiabitanl of another state) can only be obtained, in a civil action, by service of process on his jierson within the district where th(> suit is instituted, (j/ioffce v. Jlayward^ 20 How., 215.— Catuon, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. 1 7. And this provision is not changed by any of the process acts, or by the act of Congress conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts in patent cases, without regard to citizenship, g 1 1 of the Judiciary Act is not affected by the subse(pu'nt process acts, and it ap- plies to idl civil suits. Ibid., 210. 3. Parties to. See also Equity, B. 2. a. PlaintiOf). 1. Under §5 of the act 1793, an assi- gnee of a part of a patent-right cannot maintain an action for a violation of it. Tyler \. Tuel, Cra., 327.— Cuuiam; Sup. Ct., 1810. 2. But if a patentee has sold a moiety of his invention to another, a joint action lies, under such section 5, by himself and such assignee, for a violation of the pat- ent. The action is brought by those who have the whole patent in themselves, which distinguishes it from the case of Tyler v. Tuel. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 430. — Stoky, J.; Mass., 1813. 3. The executor or administrator of a joint patentee may maintain an action jointly with the surviving patentee for an infringement. Ibid.^ 431 '-It ^<.:: ACTIONS, B. 3. a. Ill AH TO I'ATKNTH. rAHTIKH TO > I'l.AINTirM. •t. A p:it(>nt(>o oiuuiot iiiaintiiiii an ftctioii for iiii iiifiiiijtji'im'iit iifh-r hv hsis iimdu an nKsi^iiniciit uf liis iiivcution; but the suit tntist. lit' Itroiij^ht l»y the as- fii<;n«'c. Jfrttert v. Adania, 4 Mas., 15. — Stouv, J.; Mass., IH-JS. 5. And it will niako no diflToronou that tlm asHi^nniont was nia/di'iy 1)i'i)iix'il ill tlut iiiuiic of tlic palcnti'i'. Jtliiiii'li(ii'(l V. Klili'iiliji\ I Wall,Jr.,;JU.— (;uii:k,J.; I'a., iHjy. lU. Ill ail action of iiifriii^uinont foumluil upon tho noii-iici-foriiiuiicn of till' coiiditioiis of a licoiisc, tiio oriixiiial pati'iitci' ami lii'cii.Hi'r ari' )ti'o|M'riy joiin-il as partii's jilaiiitin', iiotwitli.sta'idiiiy tiio wholo bniufic'ial iiiti>i-c>»t is ui liis ati- hi;;iii'i', iiiasiiiucli as Ju' was a party to the aLMVciiioiit or lict'iisi', ami may In- iii- tctvsli'il ill the patent and in iiplioliliii;^ it. Woodworth v. Cook^ 2 IMatclif., 101.— Nkihov, J.; N. Y., 1850. 17. An assi^nco of an invention, under an asslgmiieiit made before i>at- ont issued, and sueh patent beintf also issuv-d in tlio naino of the inventor or nssiifiiee, may maintain !in action in his own name for an iiilViii .McLean, 210. -M. I.K.VN, J,; Ohio, 1851. 21. A mere licensee need not bo niskde a party plaint itf in nn action of iiifringemciit, though li«! may bo bene, lited by the decree or Juilginent in tlii; case. Goix/i/ctir \.D(ty, .MS. — Gnuca, I)i<;ki;i{S(».v, JJ.; N. J., 1862. 22. Neither need a )>arty iiitereHfod as re.itni qio: (runt, in the prolits of tin- patent, be made a party, when the coii- veyance to such party reserves to the patentee the whole and sole power of disjiosal, and consecpiently the legal title. I/>id. 23. Under g 14 act of 18.10, an action at law is properly brought in the name of the patentee in behalf of a licensee who is damaged by tho infringement. Good- yeitr V. Jf-Jiurney, 3 J'.latclif., 'M.— Nici.sox, J.; X. Y., 1863. 24. If to such an action a release from the i)atcnteo is set up, tiie plaintilfiiiay file a replic.'ition setting up the li<'ens('. tho bringing of suit for the benelit of the licensee, notice to the defendants of such license, and its recording prior to the release, want of power to give the re- lease, and that it was given without tlio consent and authority of the licensee. Ibid. 33. 25. Tlie assignees of a patent, thoiiirh their title accrues to them by sevenil deeds, may all* join, as t)ie holders of tho title, in ar^ action for the recovery of daiii.'iges for an infringement of tlie patent. tStciti v. Goddard, 1 3IcAlli.s., 84. — McAllistkr, J. ; Cal., 1850. 20. Where a license had been granted to a person to use a patent, and tho patentees had covenanted not to license any other persons, nor use the i)ateul theniscJ /or inlri to the Ji'td,ih could natente(| territory, f tain Niini 1 sol'l, I'littlu of sending faetiire intc such contra( the ])atente such territc liccnso to therein; .anc maintain ai against thos action coul of his gran Ms. — ^Leavi See also C 1. Whenev a patent, con ACTIONS, B. 8. b. IIS AR TCI IMTKNTtt. I'AIITIKH TO; UKrKNIiANTfl. lliPinsi'lvt'H, Itiif ikll (liktiin^fx rerovoi't'ii for itirriiu^ciiii'iil wfiMto Itt'lorij^ (■({uully to tho piUoiitei'M mill u\wU lici'iisiM>, Jf'ld, thiituii iintiini lor ail iiilViiii^i'iiiciil (■(lulil not \n' iiiaintaiiit'il in |lu< iiiitiu> of till' licuiiMuo aloiii', l>iit that tliu pati'ii- tt'os wore botli jiroper and iiucos«ury partiiiH. North v. Journ, 4 lllatclif. — In- ciKiiHoi.T,, J. ; N. v., |M.")7. 'J 7. A more lictiiHi'O cannot brinj? an notion at law for a violation of his in- terest or riyht in a patunt. PotUr v. Jft>lly the parn- mount right of the inventor to pres«'ribe the cntnlitiuiis nn which he shall use it, and he may behehl in damages. I'Jntut V. Jonlinty I llroek, '25'2. — Makhuam,, Ch. J.; Va., 1H13. 'J. 'riie purehase of a nianuractured article, made in violation of a patent o. a third person, but without any con- nection on the part of such purchaser with the manufacture, except as a pur- chaser, will ni»t make the party buying guilty of an infringement of the rights of the jiatentee, as having used the pateiiti'd invention. A contract to pur- chase articles manufactured in xiolation of a pati'ut, is not of itself an infringe- ment of such patent. KipUiiyvr v. I>e YontKj, 10 Wheat., 305. — Wasiiino- Tov, J. ; Sup. C't., IH'jr). ;i. A mere workman employed by a person other than the iiatenteo to make parts t)f a patented article, is not liable to an action lor damages. Diiatio v, Si'olfy Gilpin, 497, 408. — IIuiKixsox, J. ; I'a., IHJU. 4. Tho seller of an article is tho ow icr for whom it is hold; not the man or boy in tho shop who delivers it to the liuycr, and receives tho money. Ibid., 408. 5. Whether a person, who acts as the mere agent of another, is resjionsi- ble in damages for the infringement of a patent, and may be enjoined ; query. Boyd V. McAlpine, 3 ]\IcLean, 430.^ McLeax, J. ; Ohio, 1844. G. Tiiere are, however, strong reasons why the interest of a principle should, by an action at law, and also by a bill in chancery, be reached through his agent. Ibid., 431. 1. An action for infringement will •ii h "••^iter. ill'' ?S'«'V " ' ««»^ ■■"■ -,"<^ Swc.^-i^ -TT* 114 ACTION H, n. a. b. AS TO PATKNTM. I'AHTIItS TO; (JRrKNDANTa lio n;{iiiiif*t tl;o |>nrtii>K tiuikin^ nil nrtlclo Aviiicli in piitt'iitiMl, tlmiij^li Hucli |ti'rMniiM un^ ciiiitloycil hyotluTH to ilo tlu» work. Jh'i/ce V. J>"r>; :» Mc-lAtiui, 583. — Mo Lka.v, J.; -Mich., iHj.'s. 8. The «lt'fiiHl;iiits wero («mjilo}'«Ml by S., who i'liniishcil thciii a iikhU'I, to Iimku or cast (■«Ttaiii jiatciiti'd artidiw, Jfchl hy tho com't, lliat, the tltli'iidaiits yw'vo lialilc, ami tliiit il was not ncccs- unry to biiiij,' tlio action against S. lOiil.y 0. A purcliasor, for hi-t own account, of articles niaiiiifaotiiri'il l)y a patented luaciiine, though piirdiased with a fid! knowK'tlge that they were tnnnufactiirud in violation of the patent, cannot Itc en- joined, or iiehl liahlo in any other way. Anon., 3 "West. Law Jour., 144. — N. Y., 1845. 10. An ngont selling an article •which infringes on the plaintiirs patent, may be joinetl as a party difemlant with the one who nianuiiicture.s snch article, .as they are joint trespassers, and are lialdc to bo sued jointly. JinrJc v. Ci>l>h rC' Henna nee, 9 Law llep. O. S., 5t7. — CONKMXO, J.; X. Y., 1840. 11. A purchase from tho defendants of a patented article, by an agent of the patentee, and for the ])iirposo of eiitra]>- ping the defendant, is not such a sale as will render them liable. Sparkmnn V. Ilhjiiins, 2 ])latchf, 30, 31.— Bkits, J.; N.'y., 1S40. 12. If ix machine, as made by the de- fendant, was not an infraction of the plaintilf's patent, the alteration of it by a third party, will not make the defeiul- ant liable; but if the machinn, as made by the defendant, Avas intended by him to operate in such a way as to violate the plaintiff's patent, and has in fact so operated, ho is a party to the infringe- ment, notwithstanding the ingeimity with which ho may iinvo Nought to diii* guino luH wrong. Kniijht v. OavU, Mir. Tut. Oir., 133.— K.1NK, J.; l»o., 1840. 13. An ai'lion of infringement catmot bo maintained against a mere purchaser of nrtidus manufacturerln'j Co. v. /'/«//).<(, 3 lilatchf., 92. — Nklson, J.; N. Y., IHr)3. 15. S. being an inventor of an im- provement in dragoon and pack saddles, made application for a patent therefor before May, 1H47. In November, 1847, before such application was acted on, C}. made application for a patent for tho same invention ; but notice of interfuf- I !ice was not given. In December, 1847, the secretary of state addressed tho Connnissioner of Patents, that an early issue of a patent to G. would facilitate a supply of saddles to the government ; (J.'s ai)plication was taken up, and a patent issued Dec. 11, 1817— S.'s appli- caticm remaining not .acted upon, and postponed, Jfthl, that the wrong duiio to S. was not conunitted by the United States, or by any of its ofHcers, so .ns to render them pecuniarily responsiblo therefor. IVn'stlc v. United States, l^evereaux, 130. — Scaruuugu, J.; Ct. CLoims, 1850. Ifl. ncglor Jit'eiiMo ahamh ground fdted, friri'^er. liKwir 17. T Helves p thostoci of a cor; from bei an actio heitsen v y., 1801. 4. Di 1. The continue brought /; such real the suit c( ymt' V. // Y., 18(30. 2. The over, cLiin 3. It wi nominal inrringcrs, he lijilile t( lafion doe; lieonsoes t provided, tlio wrono'( See Def See Pj, E.' ArnoN's, r. IIS AH TO TIIAI>»: UUtk lif.tk.M'Kt TO. HI. If a i)«'r«fiy tln> lioeriMo pr'h'o, fui will 1m« iUm«iiii>iI for- tVitcil, mill lio will l>o liiililf us tw in- fritiu'.T. //.// V. }ri'('>tn<,>Kjh, MS.— Lkwiit, J. ; Oliif , 18flH. 17. Tho fiiot timt ftH Ix'twccn tlwin- nclvi'H pjirtit"* iiri- {•oiUH'clcd toi^ctlicr iis thostockhnitlcrs, iii!iri:i;;('rs,;uiil Hcrvants of » corponitioii, will not »'X<>mpt tlii>rn from licinjj t>njoino/irn- ftfitif>en V. Fiilkc, IMS. — Siiii'M.w, J. ; X. Y., 1801. 4. Di'si'i)ntlntt(iHce of., hj whom, 1. The nominal pTainfiff cannot dis- oontiinio n Hiiit, which is in reality hroii^ht for tlu' bonclit of a liconsoo, hut sucli real plaint ill" in inforost may have the suit continue for hiHl)enetit. Good- ymi' V. Bishop, MS. — Xelsox, J. ; X. Y., 1800. 2. The nominal plaintiff may, how- ever, claim indemnity for costs. Ihld, '.], It will make no tlilU'rence that the nominal plaintitf has covenanted to sue iiilVinLjurs, upon which covenant he may l)i> liahle to his licensees. Such a stipu- lation does not tako aw.ay from the licensees tho remedy which the law has provided, of proceeding directly against tlio wrongdoer. Ih'ul. 5. Defences to See Defexces. C. Pleadings in. See PLEADixa. C In Uesi'iot to Ti!viie-m.\ukh, and 1)kI'i;.n»'K«j to. A« to right of a1ion« to m.ilnlain Huch actions, SCO Amenh, H. See ulso Coi lira, C ; Ixpuinukmknt, C; iNJirxcriONs, C. 1. To an action for tho lnfring<>tn(»nt of a trade-mark, it is wholly immaterial whether (he simidated article Is or in not of equal goodness afiil valuo with the real article. Taylor \. C>tr}t< )iftr., II I'aige, '208.— W.vi.wourii, (,'lian.; N. v., IHII. 2. It is no defence to an action for violation of plaintilV's labels and trade- marks, that \\w deft'udauts have not, uxed all the plaintiiV's labels; it is suf- ficient, if there be a violation, in imi- tating and using any of such labels. Tii/!"r v. C'irpt'nhr, 3 Story, 40-', 403. — SroKV, J. ; Mass., 1844. n. Xor is it any excuso that others have iisod such labels; this rather ag- gravates than excuses tho misconduct, unless done with tho const-nt or .acipii- esceiico of the plaintilf. Ibid., 4tj4. 4. It is no excuso for n violation of phuntilfa trade-mark, that the imitated article is as good as the original. Cauts V. ILdhrook, 2 Sand. Chy., .10.-,.-- Saxofouu, V. Ch. ; Ct. Chy., X. Y., 1845. 5. Xor is it .iny defence to an action for a fraudulent use of such trade- marks, that other persons ar^ engaged in like infringcmonts. H4d., 590. 0. Xor that tho maker of the imita- tion, or the commission merchant who sells to the jobber, told tho purchaser that they were selling .an imitation or si)nrious article. Ibid., 597. 7. Evidence of a usage or custom ,WI»».^ 1 1 mit l^ '"yU ^M. VJWwWw ii« AcriDNs, c. AN TO TIIAI>l-M.iHKM. ItKrHNI'M TO ,.<|Jafc;. ill tho riiiti'il MtritPM, Kiii^litiiil, Ai*., to tixo ttiiil iinitntf till* tnicnf,'lit \h> «Miiii|M>ti'tit in iiuTt' l)iiti<^ulion of raMtination, is no hnr to an nftion for Hucli iiifriiiLfcmnit, I'M'fjit tiiiilfr llic Statute of LiiiiitatioiiM, or iitidi't- hoiiu> |iositivc> htatiitc, like that as to patents, Mliich avoids tlio riylif, if thu invt-ntor |t('rmits till' piiMit? to iih»« tlii' patent for noiim (itiio l»i'lor« takiti;^ out lotttTs. Ifii,/., H. 10. It is no dofi^nco to nn action for a vrori;,'fiil nso of the plaint ilf's tradi-- liiark, tliat tlu) articles Hold as and fur liis, were not inferior in value to liis. Iffid, 20. 11. If tho uso of n trado-nmrk by one, in violation of tho rij^lits of the orifjinal possessor, is for sueh a len^^th of tiiiio and under siicli rireumstaiiees as to indicate a dedication or al).ind(jii- nient of the marks to tlio piihlic, or a license to use them, the plaintiff cannot recover. IhUL^ 20. 12. To enable a party to ni.aintain a bill in equity to rcstniin tlie use of trade- marks, lie must .'lUoge .and prove that Biich nse was for the purpose of ertectiiii,' a false representation, and that the arti- cles were made by those who did not in fact make thera. Ames v. King, 2 Gray, 382. — Bioelow, J.; Mass., 1854. 13. Tho fact that a person has discou- llniied th«> iiMinrnpnrtieiiliir Irtnle-inark for a time, and luhipted iiiiother, w ill not deprivi' hint of u ri^lit of act ion a^aiimt a parly Helliii Hiiflicient to j^ivu a ri^jlit of action; tjufty, /bhl.y'MH, Milt if NO, only iiniiriiial damngcK coiild be reciiviTcd. Ifn'il., M IH. 10. It will not Hupport an action for the violation of n trade-mark that tho imitation trade-mark or label has n re- Mciiililiince to the original; but any imi- tation is actioiiabit* which reipiires a careful inspection to distiiij^iiish itit marks mid appearances from those of llie mamifacture imitated. j}firrhniii'k MiiDiif. i'o.v. (j/(ir>iir,i K. I). Smith, 31)1, .•»i»2.— Dai.v, J. ; N. Y., 1H55. lit. One person has n rijj^ht to imitato and sell the Maine style of '^oods as those manufactured by another ; and the lat- ter has no rij^ht to complain unless tlio label used n]rnr>xs, - \i)Mi\Kr».\T< >iw. lit TO MIlOU IIKU)M<». Moiim or, Ai to iMviwTioRa. tnwlMnnr'k, to tlio »>nini> (>xt«ht n4 tlx' ortglnwlor lliin'ol'. H'd//"/! v. i'i'i'ar that lie lian Iteeanie the proprietor of such additions, as products of his intellectual exertions in .i partic- ular Kcrvicc in his oinpUiyment. Ih'ul^ 49. 4. Whore .-xn inventor, iti the course of his experiineiital essays, employs uw assistant, who sugj^ests and adapts a sub- ordinate iiuprovenient, it is, in law, an ADMIMSTIf A'ronS.nTr.TTTM AND roWKliS ui', A5) TO INVKN. TIONS. 1. An rxeenfor or ndinlnUtrutor of n Joint patent*'!' may maintain an actiou jointly with the hurvi\in;( |tat«'nteo for un infrinj^eiiH'nt. \V hitti mnec \ . Cutter, I (tall., 4:il. -Sioia, .1.; Mass., IH|;l. 'J. riidcr the act of 1h:ui, |j |H, tho Itoard of Conmiissiiiners appointed to V(rant nn uxteiiMion of a pati'iit may allow such extension to the le;j;al rejjresefitr* tives of a patentee, upon their applica- tion, in the same manner as ihou;;h the application hud been tnade in the lifu. tiino of the patentee. XifinniC$ Cmtv, .'t Opin., 440. — (iiuNDY, Atty.-Gt'U. ; 1h:j'.). .'I. An administrator or executor of a deceased patetiteo may apply for an ex- tension of a patent, and the patent may lawfully issue to him on such ajipliea- tioii. I'l/i Jlinth v. Si-itihhr, A!8. — Thompson, J.; N. Y., 1843. (Cite.l in lirookx V. JihkiuU, ;t McLean, 438.) 4. If a p;iteiiti'e is de|id, his adminis- trator may apply for and olitain an ex- tension t)f the patent, under the provis- ions of the 18th sectl'^n of the act of iHitit. Jirooh-n V. Jiirkiicll, n McLean, •258, 'ico.— .M»Li:an, J. ; Ohio, 1813. 5. The administrator of a ileceasod patentee may apply for and obtain a re- newal of the patent, origmally granted to such patentee. Jirooks v. Itiflcnell, n ^McLean, 430,438. — MciLkax, J.; Ohio, 1814. 0. And such an administrator, io whoso natno a patent has been renewed, ■Hi rifw, i;*"M :?vy, ^ ^\ s^^^f-^^^ IL I > ^Sr 9^ 118 AD.MiMSriJATOliS. 111(1 in H or, AS Tl> INVKNTIONH. limy pnuit an assinnnuMit of uii iiilorcst \wor(h v. J/y nil atliirmistiator of a »lo- foasul pati'iitoi'. Washburn v. (ii>nl(f, ;i Story, 133, 137. — Stouy, J. ; Alass., 184t. S. An ailiiiinlstra'of in cumiu'tcnt to apply lor and r vAm' a n-m-wal or rx- toiision ol'a patent. WlnufiPtirth v. .SV/cr- *ni(n, 3 iStory, 172. — Stokv, .1.; Mass., 1814. 0. J5 18 of the aet of IBHtl antliorizes the e\teiisit>n of a patent, on the nppli- eation of the exeeutor or atliniiiUtra- toi" of tlio ileoeaseil patentee; and al- thoiiLjli the patentee had, dniinj^ his hfetiiiie, tlisposeil of all his interest in the then i-xistiiii;; patent, haviiiix :it the time of liis death no rii^ht or title to, or Interest in, tlio orii^iiial patiMit. IV I'fso/i V. liossiiiif, t How., 07ri-077, — Ni;i,s*)v, J.; Sup. Ct., 181.'). li>. And sneh an evteiision inures to the l)enolit of the adniiiiistiator only in siirh eai>aeity, and not to assiLjiu'es •Tiid uraiitees, s.) as to vest in them any exclusive ri<;lit wiiatever. Those, how- ever, who are in the use of the ])atented article at the time of the renewal, may eoiitiiiue ti) use such machines or arti- cles. /^/(/., u70-t)Sl. — (.Mrl.io.w, ,1., and Woonnrnv, J., dissent iiiLj, holdiiiLT that Mich e\tcnsi()ii woiihl inure to those !i>sii:;nees who had bv exin'css aijive- nieiit secure 1 an inti-rest in the exten- sion.) U. An administrator may, niuler § 18 of tlie aet of 1830, api)ly for and take an extension of a patent. IVoodworth V. U7/*'(>//, 4 How., 710. — Nki.sox, J.; Sup. Ct., 1845. 12. The renewal of a patent in the name of an administrator iss^ood, as an invention is personal jn-operty. Wood- WooouiKV, J.; Mass., 1810. l;l. It is not necessary, in an action by an adiniiiislralor. tiiat lie should pro- duce his li'tters of administialion. 'i'ho patent beiiiLf renewed to him as admin- istrator, is ])roof tliat liu had satisfied the odiccr aiitl'ori/.cd to j^rant a renewal, of his bciii;^ adiiiinistrator, and it ix not eonipeteni for tJie court to go behind that tlecision. Ibid., 'J.")4. 14. An administrator of a jiatenteo, residintjin one state, may commence an action in the rniteii Sti.t'-s Circuit Court of :uu)ther state, for the recovery of damaj^es for an infringement of u pat- ent, without taking; outletters of admin- islration in the latter state. iSinifh v. ! Jfrrctr, .'i Venn. Law Jour., 531.— Kank, .1.; Pa., 184(i. 15. The same ritjht extends to tho •grantee or assij^noe of such administra- tor. Ibid. 10. Administrators of an inti'stalo have no riLrht, as administrators, toi'ar- ry on the biisiiu'ssof manufacturinijf ami selliui; a patenti'd article, by virtue of a license or ai^reeir.ent held by []w intes- tate, fartlier tiian to complete the ma- chines bej^iin by the intestate diirint.'; his lifetime, and imlinished at his dcntli; I'ut they can sell and transfer such ri;;Iii, and the purchaser Avouhl aecpiire all the riohts securiHl to the inti'stali' diiriii;; his lifetime. l*itts v. Jiimeso/i. 1") r>arb., S. C, 310. — Johnson, J.; N, Y., 1853. 1 7. Under § 10 of the act of 1830, if an inventor die before he Iris obtained a patent for his invention, no ])erson other than his executor or administrator can apply for a patent for eueh invention, and the jtatent must bo issued to such j)ersons in trust for the heirs at law or ilevisees of the inventor, Sfiitqtson v. 1851). 18. ill the exeeiil it. It set for tee, us does ii devisoi whom I Ibid. AGJ 4. ThcJ AiJKNT AND KMPl.OYKK. 110 MAUILIl'lKH OK, AH 1N»'UIMIKIIH. Jio(fvrn, t IMiiU'lit". — Inokusui.i,, J.; C't., inr)ii. 18. It iR'uil not liowovorbo exprossotl ill tito |>altMit tliat it U issiiod to niu-1i exoi'iitor /// tnti>t /or tlioHo iMititli'il to it. It will Ito sulVu'ii'Ut tliiit tlu' |iiit*iit Hot tbrtli tliat it wiis issuod to the j.;nui- too, us I'Xi'oiitor. Wiiat the v'xo('\it'.»r (looH ill ri'latioii to tlio |>ro|n'rty of tlin ili'visor, lie (lot's in trust lor ilioso to whom such proporty is given hy tlio will. Bid. AGENT AND EMPLOYEE. 1. A inoro workman, etnph)yetl by others than the patentee to in.ake parts oi' a patenteil artiele, is not liable to an notion I'or intViiiijement an-l ilanuiges. — JJditnov. iSrott, (iilpin, 407, 41)8.— IIoi-- KiNsoN, ,1. ; Ta., 1834. 2. The seller of an artiele is the owner for whom it is sold ; not the man or hoy in the sln)p who delivers it to the buyer and receives the money. — £l>hl., 41)8. 3. Whether a person who acts as the mere agent of another, is responsible ill (hiniagc'^ for the infringement of a pjitriit, and may be i-iijoined; gucri/. Jioyd V. M-A/piHC,'i JMcLean, 430.— MrLK.w, .1.; Ohio, 1844. 4. There are, however, strong reasons why the interest of a principal should, by an action at law and also by a bill in chancery, bo reached through his agent. Ibid, 431. 5. An action of infringement will lie against the parties making a machine which is ])alented, thougli such persons arc employed by others to do the work. But if such parties liavo acted without a kii(>wh'dge of tliu plaiiitilV's right, only noiiiiiial damages should bi> found against them. .AVycn v. /hrr, 3 JSIc- Lcaii, 68L', 683. — McI.kan, J. ; Mich., 18 If). (i. An injunction Avill be granteil as well against an agent, wlio merely Hells the article which infringes a patent, a?, against the nmnufartuivr, as both are joint trespassers, and they may be sued ji>intly. Ilttc/c V. Co/ih «£• JLnndnce, Law lup., O. S,, 547. — Conku.no, J.; N. Y., 1840. 7. An injunction will issue against ft person who runs a machine, as well aa against those who own it. Woodwurth V. J'Alwdi'ds, a Wood. A; INlin., 133. — \V«)oi)uiuv, J.; Mass., 1S47. 8. iVii jiction for an infringement of a patent will lie against the managing di- rectors and agents of an incorporated company, and it is not a g«)od objection (hat they are not liable for the inlVinge- iiieiit charged, betiauso they are only stoi'kholders in the company, (iood' tjMi'ibX. I'l Oar iSprimj Co. v. J'/ufptt, 3 r.latchf., 1)2.— Nklson, J.; M. Y., lsr)3. 9. A decree for an account cannot bo had against a workman, as he has no- thing to «lo with the prolit. jSctrt/cant V. /Atnied, 2 CUirt., 340. — Cturis, J.; Mass., 1855. 10. ^\n altachment for a violation of an injunction may issue against the agent and acting ollicer of the «lefeiidaiit, a foreign corporation, and he is not ex- emi)ted therefrom on the groiiiul that ho is a mere 8orv:mt of the defendant. — Sickles V. Borden, 3 or 4 JMatclif. — IIai.l, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 11. Where the violation of the in- junction was tho nso of the thing pat- (Mited, on a steamboat, JIdd, that tho eiigintor was properly made a party to "•■4 1 v$^^^. ii|| i.-'/l 'i«l*i< ^X*-?** P*'*'**^. H i •Ww '«'*■•*" 'iimp-^ *1-,5P,«- .,.„,, .vwwwy . www -^"V; 120 AGKEK.MENTS, A. A8 TO COl'VIUOIirS. tbo proceeding, and lliat an attachment would irtsuu iijtjaiiiist him. — Il>id. 12. The i'aft that aH between tliom- solvos, parlies are connected topetlier aB tlio stock! lolders, managers, and servants of an incorporated company, will not ex- empt them frOm heing enjoined, or be- ini^ liable to an action for infrinj^cniciit. J'opjH'iiIicjhHcn y.Fidkcy 3IS. — Snir.MAx, J.; X. Y., 1801. A. B. AGUEEMEXTS. As TO CoPYnKinis 120 As TO Taikxts 121 A. As TO COPYIIIGHTS. 1 . A contract to reprint a literary work, the copyright to wliich lias been secured by the autlior, is void, unless it is en- tered into with the consent of the author, or his assignee. Klchols v. Jiwjtjles, ?> Day, 158.— Ct., 1808. 5. A printer who executes such a con- tract with a knowledge of the rights of the author, can recover nothing for his labor. Ibid.^ 158. 3. Joint owners of a copyright may make a contract between themselves as to the printing and publishing of the work, and neither will be permitted to Bet lip against the other his original rights as a joint owner, in violation of such contract. Gould v. Hanks, 8 Wend., 508.— Xelson, J.; X. Y., 1832. 4. Where an agreement was entered into between two persons, that the one should prepare for press a cert.ain vol- ume, and the other agreed to pay "for the copyright" of said volume the sum of live hundred dollars, Ifdd, that such agreement nuist be clatchf., 470, 472.— Nklson, J. ; No. N. Y., 1849. [Reversed, ;)0S« 28, 1852.] IC. B having, at tho time of the ma- king such agreement, the legal title to the patent, and the suit for the infringement, which was ono of tho subjects of the settlement, being also in his name, JIdd, that such settlement or agreement bound third parties, who claimed to hold the equitable title at the time of such set- tleniunt, .and who afterward took the lejial title, and that such agreement of Bettlement was a bar to an action brought by BUch third parties against C ; and particularly as B, at the time of such bettlement, was the agent of such third Barties,and largely interested with them ji their business. Ibid., 474. 17. By an agreement with M., the patentee of the electro-magnetic tele- graph, antl his associates, O'll,, was to construct a I'tio of telegraph "to con- nect the seaboard line at I'hiladelphia, or at some other point nearest to Ilarris- burgh, thenco through Ilarrisburgh to Pittsburgh, and through Wheeling and Cincimiati to St. Louis, and also to the principid towns on the Lakes!'' Jldd, on a l»ill Jiled to restrain thu use of M.'s in- struments on a Hno of tel('grai)h from JJuffalo tc» Erie, that the line rumiing through the places named might bo con- sidered as a base line, and that the whole of the territory north of that line, extending to tho towns on tho Lakes, was intended to bo included in tho gr.ant; and that therefore tho defend- ants ought not to bo enjoined. Smith V. Sehien, 1 Blatchf., 470-478.— NkI/. SOX, J.; N. Y., 1849. rs. Held, also, from looking at such telegraph line on tho map, or construing the agreement from its subject matter, that tho lakes contemplated en\braced the lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior, but that the line specifically named and the lakes in connection there- with, fairly excluded the lake Ontario. Ibid., 478. 1 9. The reservation of a right, in such agreement, to M. and his associates " to extend a lino from ButValo to connect with the lake towns at Erie," was not an exclusive right, and therefore not in- consistent with the grant to O'll. Ibid., 479. 20. In the case of a well-founded doubt as to the true construction of tho agreement, as to the extent of the grant, the conclusion should be against the par- ties who have made the gr.ant, as th&y are chargeable with any obscurity in that respect in the agreement. Ibid.y 479. 21. K. purchased an interest in a pat ''^^^Wv^,,^ is, SI Him; UilUl k :ywww, ,wy *'f^: '■^UK 'WW " '^ " - Ml '«J(w!(j 1 \ 1 V^W.W'' nrr 124 A(;ilKKMKNTS, Jl. ! if v.... "^a. AH TO I'ATKNTH. cut, ftiiJ ii^^rt'i'tl with tlui |mtoiiteo, upon certain coiiditioiiH, to Kivt? hin pcrsoii.'i! ntloiitioi) to miiiiurru'tiiriiiLC of iiiacliiiit's under tlio p.'iti-iit; al'lorwanl !i(( inatjo n Ht'coiwl ai^rt't'iin'nt with the patcntt'o, wht'r»!l»y hf, IC, aj^rced to discontinue Buch nmnidjictiirc, and tlie patentee was to carry it on, reiuh-rinj^ to K. a certain ]>roportion ot' tlie profits. y/(/7, (hat by virtue of sucli a;^'rceuienls K. was estopped, ill an action broutjht aj^ainst liini by the patentee for continuiii!^ such iiiaiiuf'icture, and for an account, from HetliiiiJC up the (U-feiice that siicli paten- tee was not, the oriuiiial and lirst iiiveii- tor of the thinijc ])ateiittMl. Pdrkliiirxi v./CfUHman, 1 r>lat«"if, 400, 4!)6.— Nk!,- Kox, J.; N. v., 1849. LAtririiied 1855, Jiosf 41.] 'J'J. ./fi/i(f.y 41)5, 4!)l). [.Vflinned 185"), pos^ 'J;J. "NVIiere it is evident that the legal oflbct of a contr.'ict, according to (he terms of it, is differont from the actual agreeiiuMit made at the time betwei'ii tlii^ ])arties, a court of etpiity Avonld prol)al)]y, n])on a proper appHcation, di- rect the contract to be reformed by the insertion of a clause to the effect claimed. Wood worth V. Cook, 'J I'.latehf., 158.— N^i.sox, J.; N. Y., 1850. 24. l?ut such contract cannot be re- formed, where rights of a bona Jhh' purchaser have intervened, which would or might be seriously prejudiced by allowing such contract to be reformed, ov defence set np. Ibid., 150. 25. "Where a contract as to the use of a\iatent, provided for a certain mode of a«certaining the amount of fuel saved by it In Hteani inaehinc'ry, evidence hav- ing !)een given of that tent, it 's eoinpi<< lent to eonnnn it by other tests tiiiide by others and in odicr boa(s. lI'rvA, iCv. Piirkit (!». v. Sirkl(\% 10 II(.\v-., 4:i8.~(iuiKit, .1.; Sup. ('(., 1850. 20. A contract to use a patent nia- eliin«> and C and others, providing for the spl- t lenient of various mat t ers ; I he discont in- uaneo of certain suits, and also as to the manufacture of a certain article, as fol- lows: " that the said parties may e.icli hereafter manufacture and vend spike of such kind and character as they see fit, notwhhstanding their eonilicting claims to this time," must be construed with ref- erence to the sitn.ations of tho parties to it; and ]> h.aving claimed that lio had the exclusive right, under his patent, to make such spikes, wliich right the defendant C was infringing, but the do- fendant claiming that he did not iiifiinije such patent, but made such spikes by .•xn entirely different method, Jleld, tliat such agreement did not give C a lieonso to make such sj>ikcs after B's patent, but only Name pro hel'ore u> /vV. v. \\ avm;, 20. All owner of /,'rantee ( use, .-iiiil < in,'ieliiii(> p; tiiry, but I right to sc chines of || operate ;is tlie grantc cured by tl t(»lT. /'//(.I Johnson, ,| .10. It is of a license more th.'in ; is a fixed c( grantee, juk 315. 31. It is not in posse his assigns long as till' it. Wliencvi tlio rights sei to the grants the grantor som to make machine, in ing respousi reprcsentativ 31G. 32. The re also a mere transferable t 33. U])on the contract, to his adminii 316. 34. The gri ACKKKMKNIN, 15. AH Til I'MKMH. 12S bill only :* rii^'lil. I<» iniiko tlirtn liy tlu' Hikiiir piiKM'ss or luai'liiiu'iy lu; liatl l)i'<>ii bolbro tisiii}^. Troi/ /n>n anil Null Juie. V. Voniiii;/, It How., 'JlU. — Wavni;, .1.; Sup. ("I., Ih.VJ. 20. All aj^'rci'iiH'iit iiiiulf hctwcrri (lie owner <»(' u paU-iit, Hucuiiiig (<> tlif craiitoc tlid exclusive rij^lil, to iiiaki', USO, ami Hi'll to otluTH to l)u Jiscil, the inncliiiu' |»att'iil(Ml, williin :i certain tcni- tiirv, l>iit ri'scrviiij^ to tliu j^rantor tlic riLjIit to sell, williin such territory, ina- cliiiics of his own nianufacture, docs not n|ii'rat(' .'IS an .'issii^'iiincnt or translVtr to llif ^rant(fi) of the riu;lit and tilh; se- cured hy the p.aleni, within hiicIi terri- t(M y. /'ids V. Jitificvjn, 1 T) 1 Jarb., l)\^>. — JoMNSo.v, .r.; N. v., 1H5;». no. ll is an iiLjreonienl in the nature of a rp'i'usc to nianiifaetun' and «ell,l)iit more than ii nu-ro technical license,; it is a fixed contract rij^lit, vested in the grantee, and assignaldo by him. //>/ing optional with him to retain, if ho ]>refers it instead, a half-right to manu- facture." J/tld, that such agreement embra<-e(l a reissued ]i:Jeiit ; and that li. obtained an immediate right to man* ufaeture, and not merely an obligation for a future viglit ; and that 15. could recover of CJ. one-half of any salert ma tiiiu^ of tlic iiiiikint; hiuiIi ajj;n'ejiu>iit, and aftcr- Avard a nt'w application was made, upon wliicli a patent was issniMl to Ij., Ifilif, that it was to bo prcsiunc*! lii.it tho ])atont issjiod was the ono conteinplatu'd by th(! Mf^ivcnu'iit. Ihid.^ 400. iiM. A stipulation in a patent snil pi'oviih'd a decree should be entered for tlie plaint ill's nnh-ss the machine used by tlio defeinhint was oonstructod before the date of the application of jilaintill's for his ])atent, JIil. Ct., IH55. 42. And even if the jtatent was in- valid, it would not liave rendered tlio sales of the machines illegal, so as to release such jiarty from the obligaliou to account. //>/ their man- iifactnre of such machiiii'S void, as being in restraint of tra«^ut the writ^sui consent \ a<;|{i;kmf,nts, n AM T<) I'-XTKNTH. 127 of Hiioh tnistpp, trnnvftTH tho cfitiro In- UTcst :iinl owiitTHliip, li'i^ul mill t'<|uil.- tililt', of tliu pati'iitiH) ill tliii patciil to Hiicli tnisti'o for till! bciuilit of tlioHO iii- UTo-iti'd. Ihid., 'JJO. 47. A iit'j^fli'ct <»r omission to \y,\y to Mu;li ]>at(>iitc>u mi miniiity, provitjtMl for in jiikI Hti|Milatc'il liy hiicIi !irecedent for ohtainini; relief may be such reparation. Ihid., 302. r)0. Where tho covenant was, hy the owners of a patent, that no ri;;ht to use tlu! invention sliould bo conveyed with- out tho assent and concurrence of all those interested, Ildd, that a party, who had been guilty of a breach thereof, though through a misapprehension of the construction of Iho agreement, could not maintaiu a bill for an injunction to restrain tho other covenanter from a similar violation. Ibid.^ 302. 51. A contract for tho purchase of a patent may be rescinded for false and fraudulent reproseiit.ations constituting an inducement to it, and whether tho party making them knew them to bo false or not. (niflin;/ v. XiWdll^ Ind., .^70.— Tkukinm, J.; Iiid., 1867. 62. Hut Huch repreHcntalion must bo as to a fact or facts, mid go to u material issiu', and must be one on which tho parly to wliom it is madti has u right to, and does rely. /Aa/., 670. 5;!. A party, however, who wouhl rescind .a contract on the ground of fraud, must oiler to do so wilhiii a rea» Honablo timo after tho fraud is »liscov« ered. Ihhl., 677. r^\. Where certain liTins arc used in a grant, which have .a well-known gen- eral meaning, tlu'ii, in the interpretation of such grant, such well-kmiwn general meaning must be given to the terms used, unless it appear that some other or different meaning was intended by them. Jhiy v. Cnry^ 3IS. — Inukksoix, J.; N. Y., 18.-) 0. r)5. Deeds must speak for theniMlvcs, when able to speak dearly and iiuder- Htandingly. IJiit in giving an interpre- tation to a particular clause of a deed, we must look to every part of it, in order to ascertain whether such inter pretalion is the true one. Ibid. 50. Though tho construction and in- terpretation of written instruments is for \\w court, it will nevertlule.ss bring to its !iid the testimony of witnesses to explain terms of art, and make itself acquainted with the material with which the contracts deal, and Avith tho cir- cumstances under which they were made; but neither tho testimony of witnesses in general, nor of ])rofessors, experts, or mechanics, can be received to prove to the court what is the prn])er or legal construction (jf any instrument or writing. Den/ v. Stcllman^ MS. — Giles, J., Md., 1850. 1 i! ■wh.:: .Wiiwn. ■W".>. ttr ^-'W:'! O^^v^,^ '*^yi iiilT CWWWw»-v, W'^W'''^ 128 ALIKNS, A., il. MlilllTa or, At TO PATKNTI AMI> THUtK-MAHKH. I'atknth 12S D. HiiiiiTH or, AH TO iNritiNUXMKNT or 'I'iiaukM.viikh 138 A. JlHilHH ANr» LlAIIII.ITIKB OF, IN l{KMl'EtT TO l*ATIiNT8. Soo nlHo Patknth, K. 1. PffviniiH to I'.! net of 1 SOO, tin- niitliorily fi'wru hy law to j^raiit palctils, wnH roiifiiiutl to cili/.i'ii!! of tlic riiitcd States. Afion., I ()|iiti.i 110. — L1NC01.N, Atty. (Icii. ; IHOU. 'J. ruder the aet of IHOO, a f(ireij,'iier, tlioiijj;lilia\iii^resi(K'(l within the I'liitetl Statt's tor more than two years, coiiM not have a patent for an invention put into o|M>ration liy him in another eonn- try, heCorc lie came here. J)itj)litl''a cit.ii'y 1 Opin., ;);{'.>.— Wiiir, Atty. (k-n, ; iHiiO. 3. As to the rights of u patenico to finrreniler a defetlive patent ami take ont a new one, tliero is no diHerence be- tween a eiti/en and alien. tS/iaw v. CoojKT^ 7 Pet., 315. — McLkan, J.; Sup. Ct.; 18:)n. 4. 15y the provisions of tho patent nets (17D;{ and JHOO), citi/eim and nlien'^, as to p.itent-rights, are i)laeed stibstantially (m tho saino ground. In either ease, if tlie invention was known or used liy tlio jmblie before it was pat- ented, tlio patent is void. In botli cases tho right must bo tested by tho same rule. I/tid, aitJ. 6. An alien ])atonteo must put and continue on sale to tho i)ublie, within eiglitcen months from tlie date of tlie patent, tlio invention or discovery for ■which the patent issued. HiUlreth v. Heath, MS. (Ajip. Cas.), Ckancii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 0. If n for«'ign patentee, or hin aii< Nigneex, do not put tlieir invention on Nah> wiliiin tightet-n months aHer tho Name is obtained, as reipiired Ity ^ !.'> of the aet of 1h:I(), the patent will bu void. Tiitlidin V. Lorinif, fi N. Y. Leg. Olm., •-'OH.— Srouy, J.; MaHS., iHlft. 7. 'I'll*' aHsignee takes »»nly the right of llitf foreign inventor, and 110 more, and is Nubj«'ct to the reipiirenu-nts of tho ali(Ui clause in g 15 uf tho act of IHIIO. IhliL, 'J08. H. The alien clauno in g 15 of the ad of lH;t(J, applies only to alien i)atenti'e-', and not to American patentees who Ik-. <'onie such as jisHignces of alien in\ en- tors under 5$ (1 of the act of ln:t7. To- t/iiitn V. Lof/ier, 2 IMatciif., 51. — Nkl- SON, J.; N. Y., 1847. 0. Viidor S 16 of tho act of 18.10, it is not essential that an alien paten- tee, or his assiguei', shouM lake ac- tivo means for tho purpose of putting tho patented invention in tlio market anil forcing a sale, Mithin eighteen months after \]n> date of the patent, hut only that he should bo re.'idy at all tinni' to Hell at a fair pri(!e, when n rcvsonahlo offer is made. Tutliom v. Lc Itoij, ^LS. — Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1840. 10. It is a <|Uestion lor tho jury to de- termine, whether tho invention was so put and continued on s.ile. Ibi '. 11. A )»atent obtained 0/ ."ilio". uj)on an oath, ignorantly or i/i,.ilver- tently made, that he is n citizen ot the United States, is void, and not voidably only. J/T/ii'« Assignee v. Adtms, 3 Wall, Jr. — Guikk, J. ; 1\ 1801. B. Rights of, as to Infkingement OP Tuade-Makks. 1. Tho fact tliat tho complainant, in 500, 50H 1845. 4. AH of a cou in the usi 'iiarks, a will neve right :uii of suitoi Sand. Ch 1840. 5. An courts .'in trade-mar lorv. Cdi Wootnui 0. And extent of sales and "sing ther ^l^tfVi, AMIlUil ITV IN I'ATKXTS. 190 Rrracr or, a* to tiikiu vaudiiy. A unit in t'(|iiity for tin injunction to ro- Ktrtiin tliu tVaiiiliilcMt iiso of n triiiUs murk, iM » rtultji'ct ot' iui(>lli«*t' govern- iiit'Ol, <\i)on Mot alttT till* ri^'litM nt' tlit> |itii'ti('^, (ir ilcprtvt' t)u> (>t)iii|i|iiiii!uit of the i-i;;lit to tlut iiilfr|Mmition of court. So far aa tiic Niihjuct matter of tliu Huit is conccnicil, ||ii>ii> is no (lilU'it'iici' Ix'- twi'cn citi/rii* aixl aiiciiH. '/'ni/lor v. Ciiri>i')it<>\ II raij;r, 'JDO.— \VAi,w«mrii, Chan.; N. V., 1H44. 2. In ikn ;;vtion for n violation of a traili'inarl<, ii inalics no (iill'crcin'c tliat till' ciiiiiiilaiiiaiits aro aliciiH; in tliti courts ul'tlio Unili'd States alien friends nro entitled to tliu Haine ])roteetion in their riixlit'* !»^ citizens, Tm/lorx. Car- potti r, ;.' Story, 403. — Stuuy, J.; Mass., IHtt. ;i. Tlio fnci that the party complain- ing of a wroii'^t'il use of his tradti-marks is an alien, or s'lltject of a foreign gov- eriinu'ut, d^.es not alter his rights, Co(if'.i . . Hitlhrook, '1 Sand. Cli., 595, 500, 598.— SANi)Kom>, V. Chan.; N. Y., 1845. 4. Aliens c.nn invoke the jurisdiction of a court of chancery to ))rotect them in the use and possession of their trade- marks, as well U9 citi/x'ns ; the courts will never recogtiizo a ditlerent rule of right and justice between any class of suitors. Taylor ". Carpenter^ 2 Sand. Ch., 014.— Lott, Sena.; N. Y., 1840. 5. An alien friend can bring in our courts any action for the violation of his trade-marks, Avhich a citizen can. Tay- lor v. Carpenter^ 2 Wood. & Min., 9. — WooL'uuuY, J.; Mass., 1840. 0. And is entitled to recover to the extent of his damages by the loss of Bales and the profits made by those using them. Ibid, 9, 16. '!. Being a resident abroad makes no ditferencu in hin right, or the Jiiriwdlo- tion of our courtM, if the Nubjeet matter of the action arises li«'r(>. /Am/., 17. H. And he is enlilled to this extont, though tho artieli's Hold .is and for hist were not inferior in tpmllty to hi*. //>/»/., 21. 9. Ah to the right to bring an action for the wroiigl'ul or finuduli'nt uhv of a trade-mark, (here is no ditVerenee be- tween a citizen or alien. Cnffii^n v. lirxhtnn, 4 McLean Kep., 5iM3. — Mo Lkan, i.\ Ind., 1849. AMniGX ITY IX PATKNTS. As to how invention should bo set forth, SCO also Compositiox ov Mat- TKu, n.; iMritovKMK.NT, n. ; Maciiinic, and Si'Ki'lFirATluN, li. 1. If tho description mixes up the old and the now, and does not distinctly as- certain for which in particular, the pat- ent is claimed, it is void. J^mnll v. Leicis^ 1 Mas., 188. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1817. 2. What is claimed as now, must ap- pear M'ith reasonable certainty : it is not left to minute inferences and conjec- tures, w to what was ])reviousIy known or unknown: tho question is, not what was before known but what the paten- tec claims a» ne\o. Ihuh^ 188. 3. If tho terms of a patent are so ob- scure or doubtful that the court cannot say what is tho particular itnprovcment which the patentee claims, and to what it is limited, the patent is void for ambi- guity. Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mas., 470. — Story, J. ; Mass., 1818. 4. A general statement that the pat- ented article is in all respects, without 1 i iT '^'^Mi i) '|y W M ^' -■ ' JTin l|iii iCVWWWw.... Viint on (III olil iirticli', if. iiu H)K't-il|("itiiili'iitt'»> cmi. not r(><*ov(*r for an liifiiiip'iiu'iit. Ntclltc:itinii, um to tlio Muhjcci of the ;x*'''^'>N j;«'tn ral »'\|>n'«t- flotlH ill tlu) H|irciH«'atioll. I'lttlhnilC, V. Drriiii/ii'. i Wavh., uiT. — WAHiiiNfi- lov, .'. , J 'a., IHIH. 7. TIiiiM, wlii'ii the patt'Tit rccitt'il the nj>iilicniit to l»o tlic inventor of an ini- jirovciufnt in Itorinj^ innskcts hy a t wi^t- t'll wrcw-.iiiujcr, niid tin' K|it«r|lic:ition ili'Mcrilx'il tli(> inainicr of making till' an- ger, it« form, and ln)\v to Ih< n^iod, and tho ntlidavit continod tlio invention to til" itiiiirovcinciit in ninhoKj niiif, rn for lioriiifj inuski't liarri'l'^, Ildd, tliat tlic jiafcnt, I'xlciidcd fnily to tlio i"i;/ir, ami not to tho inc'tliod of n-iiip; it. I/)id., 2ir, 218. 8. A spccKication wli'rliiniv np tlic new and tlii' oIwii or ii«««1 b»ifori', tlin pntptit U Void, /.'iiif/ifiih V. /ff (irnnt, I l'a!n<>, 'i07.— l.iviNUHTov, J.; X. Y., IHua. II. TIki Mpecilieation described ths invention *' that it eMscntially coii>«iMtH In atlachiii); th<> packet to the Nieaniboat with roped, eliainn, or uparM, ho nn to eoinniiini<-ate the power of the wiivo from the towiiij; vessel to vesseU taken ill tow, and k' ;' nlwayw nt eonvchicnt distnneo, the luannor of npplyin;; the power vnryiiiii '■> "<»•»•' measure with the ••irciiinHtaiiceM, /AA/, thit the ilc- Hcriptioii of the invention, if any there was, was to«» vaj,'ne and uncertain, and bad. SnUh'iin v. linlj!,!,!, \ I'liim., 4.50, 4ft 1.— Thompson,' J.; N. V, 1 H'J,-!. I 'J. A description, though in some re- speetH obseiire, imperfoet, or not so in. telli<,'ible as to fully aiiswi'r the objects kiii'tf, JJald., .'418.— lb\i,i»wiv, J.; I'a., !h;ii. III. The pateiileo must specify his in- volition clearly and explicitly ; any nm. biguity affectedly iiitrodncecl into tlio specification, or any tiling done to mii. lead the public, will make it void. Ibid., ;un. 14. As to tho Bpecificntion imtliini,' is K'ft to construction as toils re(|iiisil('s or ]iurposes, both beiii<; so clearly tie- fined by tln^ statute, and in such a man- ner as to leave no r, ar to wkih vammtt. tlon ot' tlic wiinlM, mill without vn^ii«> roiijoi'tiiri' of tnli-iilioii, ^iitlior wliiit it in, tho |>iiti'iit is viii uracil, titliiii^' tlic wholo ill (■(itiiii'otinii, wliiit \A tli«< iia- turn aini <>xti>iit ot* tliu rhiiin, tliuii the |)liiiiititV iM ciitilliMl to till) Itciit'iitH ot' il, liiiwi'viT iiii|irirc(ily iiml iiiurlilli i:illy lu> limy lijivi' i'Xj»ri'.MH4'd iiiin^flt*. 7/>*«/., tH5. • 17. n* llu'rc ho nny aiuliiffiilly or iiii- ct'itaiiify ill nny |iiu'l of tlio H|M'ciricat imi ; V( t, if talsiiiL; till' wliitic toLjrilu'r, tlic court ran |H'rrciv<' tlif tv.-nt n.'iliiri* iukI I'xtt'iit of tlio (•liiiiii nijuli' l»y tho iiivoii- tor, it U hoiiiitl to lulitjit that intcrpri'- tilloii, ainl to ^\\i> it full I'fU'ct. /i>/ss(>iiti.'il that thu ncir jiarts shouhl In- HO ilistinclly pointcil out that tho claiiii may not oovor nny parts that nro iM. lilttkii V. Sp,rn/, 2 N. Y. Log. C)l»H.,2:)r).— .Uri.so\, J.; Ct., 1H43. 10. Whothor a pati'tit is void for un- I'l'rfaiiity or aiiiliigulty in tho doscrip- tioii, is II inattor of taot to ho dociih-d upon tlio ovidonco of exports. \\' Wood. Jb .Mill., 2H, — Wooi.iuKV, .1. ; Mass., 1H40. j:i. If iho dosoription is ho nncorlaiii and ohsouru as to what was inoaiit, and what is in fuot tho novelty, that it can- not ho ilotorminod whothor tho improve- iiiont oouxi4ts in the oomhiiiiition of tho wlmlo, or of all the parts, or only «)f Homo of thoin, and of which — or of nn invoiition of soino, nnd if so, of what — tho iiiioertaiiity will ho filial, and tho pateiitoo will ho niidi-r the nooo>i>ily of iiiakiii;^ n new spooilication, Ht-ttin;^ Ku'th IiIh claim with groator certainly, acoiiracy, nnd olearnoss, and disclaiming all not now. /A/, is to "disiiiii^uish the iiivoiirmn iVom thiiit^s hoforo known, and to oii:iltlo any person skilli-d in the art or scii-nce to mako and ust« tho same." This is nooossary to enable tho Commissioner of I'.atonts to jiids^o whether the matter olaimod is new or too hro.id — :iiid to onahlo tho courts, when the jiatotit is afterward contested, to form !i like judLtinont — and also to enable tho pub- lic to undersfaiid what the patent is, and refrain from its use, unless licensed d*"**"' ¥•^••^^1 M,. ,r ^-*^. t^^^ 4, ' * '- ■** f(^ ''^— V , ■" Tl <...- '**Vl ■>>«-M^A ■..i; ^'Wfe in; AMOl NT IN CONTKOVKIiSV. Jl lIlSI'initlN IN I'ATKST CASKH, HOW AKKJCTKD IIY. i^^ Jt"'Jlf V. J'sitursoHy ll«)\v., 484. — AVooDiiiuY, J.; Sup. rt., 1H47. 25. Jliit till! patiMitt'i' iii'otl not »lo- t»cril)i' partli'iilarly, and ilisclaiin all tlio oltl parts, and tliat is fspoi'iail}' uiiiu'iu's- sary wlicii siu-li disfiaiiiu'r is iiianilt'stly ill substaiu'U tliu rosult of his claiiniiitr as now only tlio portions wliirh ho docs di's(Mii)i' spi'i'ially. Il>!d., 4,M5. '_'(!. It' the invontioii is not doscrihod witli nasonablc certainty and preeision, the jiatentee f-aii claim iiothin<» under his patent. Parker v. Stiles^ 5 ^lelieun, 54. — I.KAVirr, J.; Ohio, 18 IS). 27. Patents .-ihoiild be eonstnied lib- orally to support the claims of meri- torious inventors. IJut there should not be such a liberality of eonstnictioii, which is injurious to the public, and jiennits the inventor to couch his s])eei- iication in such ambitious terms that its claims may be exi>aiided or contrac- ted to suit the exigency. Parker v. Scars, ]\IS.— GuiKK, J.; Pa., 1850. iiS. Where in an improvement in the construction of cars for railroads, the most essential feature of which consist- ed in the location of tiie two sets of tinick" relatively to each other — as re- motely from each other as can be con- veniently done for the siij>port of the carriage — and in the near proxunity of the two axles of each truck to each other — as near as possible to each other, and i)revent their contact with each other, Ildd^ that the spccificativ .; was Bullicieiitly definite without specifying in feet and inches the exact distance from the ends of the car body at Avhich it would be best to arrange the trucks, or the exact dist.ance between the two axles. Winans v. Schenec. tfe Troy 11. B. Co., 2 Blatchi., 295, 207.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1851. 29. If any thing is included in ft pat- ent which is not new, the patent is void. If what is new be mixed ui) with what is old, the patent is no protec* lion for either. JJolUilay v. Ji/uctti, 18 IVnn., 4lM).— Hi.ACK, C'li. J. ; Pa., IHr.'J. 30. The specification of an invention for the use of anthracite coal, with a blast, in the eommoii glass furnace, omitted to set forth the peculiar mode of regidaling the blast, so as to produce a (fij^'uscd and not a conce titrated heat, in which consisted the great advantau^e of the invention. Jlehl, that under j5 of the act of 18;U5, it was too vague to warrant a patent. Ycarslcy v. Jlrook- Jidd, IMS. (App. Cas.) — 3Iousici.i,, J.; D. 0., 1853. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. 1. In cases .arising under the patent laws, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts does not depend upon the citi- zenship of the parties to the action, or the amount in dispute, but upon tlio subject matter. Alleii v. Jilu/it, 1 Blatchf., 480.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1849. 2. Under § 1 7 of the act of 1 830, a writ of error or an appeal may lie to theSii- l)reme Court, under an order of the court, alt h' ugh the judgment is under the sum of $2,000. Ihote v. iSilsby, 1 Blatchf., 544. Nelson, J.; N. Y. 1850. 3. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court embraces all cases, both at law and in equity, arising under the patent laws for infringement of letters i)at- ent, without regard to the citizenship of the parties, or the amount in contro- versy. Day v. Newark I. Ji. Co., 1 Blatchf., 030.— Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1850. AXALVSIS.— AITKALS, A. 133 ANALYSIS, KVIDKNCK UT. Ari'EAlJt TO SIIMIICMK COfllT. 4. WluTo a bill is liloil to onforoo ii spi'cifio pi'rformaiu'o of a contract in re- lation to a jiatcnt, the Sii|trcino C\)urt has no appellate jurisdiction, unless the matter in contro'crsy exceeds the value of two thousand dollars. Jirown v. Shttnnon,'20 How., 50, 67. — Tankv, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. f). Tho court may, however, lawfully exorcise its jurisdiction, when a far less aMU)unt is in dispute, if a ])arty is pro- coedinjjj in law or equity for the infriiiLje- mont of a patent-rij^lit to which lie claims to ho. entitled. Ihitf., oil. U. 'I'he anunmt of the i)enalty in a bond taken on an injunction in the court helow, cannot bo referred to, to give jurisdiction. Ibid., 58. ANALOGOUS USE. Sec DouulkUsk; "Nkw ArrucATiON on UsK." ANALYSIS. 1. Analysis is tho only mode by which the human judq^mcnt can rest upon .ab- solute certainty. There aro but few questiouu which may bo decided by the i)ower of analysis, chemically or m.athematically. liut where this is done satisfact(»rily, truth is att:iined. Allen V. Jliwter, MeLe.an, 312. IMoLean, J.; Ohio, 1855. 2. The testimony of a chemist, who has .analyzed tho incjredients of a com- position of matter, as to the nature of such composition, is not ni.atter of opin- ion, but evidence of a fact demonstrat- ed. Ihiil, 312. ANSWEU. Sco Kquitv, K. 5. APPEALS. In Patent Cases. A. To TUF SlTI'RKMK CmiiT 133 II. To .TUSTII'KS (U' TUK I'UICLIT COUIIT, 1)ISTUU?T CDHMtUA. 1. Wliiil is; when lies ttnd when not; u'lim lost i:?5 2. Duly of Ciwimmionfr of PaUnls iit cttsf.i of. 137 3. Jurisdiclion of Juitice.i on Appeiil, 138 4. "Ileiisons of Apjit'dl,'^ sujjicienry of, lie Ill 6. Practice in cases of Appeal liil A, To TIIK Sui'UKMK COUHT. Soo also "\Vkit of Ekuor. 1. Under § 17 of tho .act of 1830, if a writ of error is allowed by the court, in cases where the amomit in dispute docs not reach ^2,000, and in such as aro deemed " reasonable," it must brinuf up the whole case for consideration, and the court below cannot determine that only particular points sh dl bo taken up. Ifof/f/ V. J'Jiiiertto)!, llow., 477, 478. — WoonnruY, J.; Sup. Ct., 1847. 2. The word " reasonable" .applies to the cases, rather than to any discriu'ina- tion between the difleront points in tho cases. Ilnd., 478. 3. An appeal lies otdy from a final de- cree of tlu> co\irt below. A decree for a perpetual injunction, in a patent case, and a reference to a master to report the damage sustained by the plaintiff is not a final decree within tho practice WlftttejTj jjiif] k^^^- T ^1 ''««i»;'l ■ m iliri III UrV^t...., yi'Mi-'W' tm 134 ArriOALS, A. TO TIIK HirrUKME COIIIT, WIIKX. U,H*- iK ft of tlio court, HO that nii apix'.-il will lie. JltiriKinl V. Gil>«nn, 7 How., 057, OuH. — JMcl.KAX, J. ; Sii]). Ct., 1 S4S. 4. Uiulcr J$ 17 of llio net of 1830, an nppi'al or writ of error lies to tlio Sii- prt'tno Court, iiiKk-r an order of tlie eourt, alllioiii^h llio jiitl^nient Is iiinler tlie Mnionnt of ^'2,000. J'\)(tte v. iSiMn/, 1 I'.l.itelif., 544.— Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 5. TIr! last clause of g 17 of the act of 1h;U!, providini; for appeals anro confcsso, is ad- dressed to the discretion of the court ; .and for a refusal to grant such leave, an appeal does not lie to the Supreme Court. Dean v. 3Iason, 20 How., 204. —McLean, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1857 i APPEALS, IJ. 1. 135 TO JUHl'lCKH' CIUCUIT t'UL'lir. WHAT IH; W1II:N I.IKS, KIO. B. To JUSTICKS' ClUCUlT CoUIlT, Dis- TllICT CoLUMUIA. 1. What ia f when lies and tohennotj when lost. 1. Whether a socoiul rejection of an ii])pliciitioii, by the ConiiniHsioiior, after nil aiH)eal to the justices of the Circuit Court, for reasons untouched by tlie de- cision of the ju.lge, wouhl be thti sub- ject of ajiiteal ; query. Arnuld v. liishop, IMS. (Apj). Cus,) — Cuanch, Cii. J.; J). C, latl. 2. The object of {j;iviiiut HiHi post IH.J 0. Where the decision of the Commis- sioner of Patents neither allirms nor siv .jaa !^m^ """^Wi la-:^*.*!^" '^^i %4^ ''•'^i: *i« J '*f Ilk.,' IJ A' Mm ^ ^P™ rM 130 APIMCALS, B. 1. TO justices' ciucuir colut, what is; wiiex ukh, ktc. 14. Uiuler ^g 7, 8, of the act of 1830, two clussc'S of casi's aro ])rovi. Cas.)— DuxLor, J. ; D. C, 1854. 17. An appeal hes from .i decision of the Commissioner of I'atents denying a patent to both ai)plicants, as well as ■when he denies it to one, and grants it to the other. It is from the decision refusing to grant a patent as applied for that the law allows an appeal. Carter v. Garter., MS. (Ajip. Cas.) — MoKSKLL, J.; D. C, 1855. 18. Under § 8 of the act of 183G, a patentee has equal right of appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Pat- ents in favor of an applicant, that an applicant has from a decision in favor of a prior patentee. Bahcoch v. Deg- ener, jMS. (App. Cas.) — Meerick, J. ; D. C, 1859. 19. This decision followed in Spear V. Abbott, DuNLOP, J., 1859; and Beech y. ^WeA-er., Moesell, J., 1860. 20. The language of the statute is broad enough to embrace, and does end)race, " a patentee" who is dissatis- fied with the decision of the Commis- sioner of I'atents on the question of priority of right or invention. Ibid. 21. It cannot be limited to the case of contending a])plicants. Ibid. 22. The phrase "to determine which or Aviiether either of the applicants," tfec, was introduced for the j)urpose of insuring the examination of the ques- tion, in the case of contending jippli- cants, l)y the judge, whether cither of the ai)plicants liad brought forward a patejitable claim. Ibid. 23. Within § 11 of the act of 1839, as to the Conmiissioner regulating the time (.f .ippeals, lie may extend the time of ap{)eal ; it is a matter Avith- in his discretion. Justice v. Jones., jMS. (App. Cas.) — Meruick, J.; D. C, 1859. 24. Xo appeal lies from matters which are within the discretion of the Conunissioner of Patents, as extending time to take testimony, &c., miless ])er- haps for a i>lain abuse of discretion. Ho2>kins V. Bewis, MS. (Ajjp. Cas.) — MoKSELL, J.; D. C, 1859. 25. It is not i)roper matter for the appellate tribunal that the Commissioner of Patents has not given a party such reasons for his decision and made such suggestions as enabled him to judge of the expediency of abandoning or modifying his aj^plication. Spencer, Ex parte ; Mimson, Ex parte, JMS. (App. Cas.) — Merrick, J.; D. C, 1859. 26. Though the law requires the Commissioner to aid the inventor by information and suitable references to I'emedy a defective specitication or claim, and to assist his judgment in determining whether he should with- draw or persist in a rejected ai)plication APPEAT.S, B. 2. 137 Ht.TY OK COMMIHHIONKIl IN CAKKS OR — tliu iiKiiiiier of (ioin^ so, liow often, and to whiit oxlont, is left to tlio dis- ert'lion of tlic Couimissionor, and it is not tlio sul)jt'i't of review whether this duty is well and Huflieiently jterfornied in a given instance. Chtnnhct'ft,, J'}x parte, MS. (App. Cus.) — Mhuuuk, J.; J). C, 1H5!). 27. An appeal cannot bo made after the time limited in the notice of appeal. JJittou, W., J'Jxjxirte, IMS. (App. Cas.) — :>[EKmcK, J.; ]). C, 1860. 28. Upon an application for a reissue under § 5 of the act of 1837, asking for several reissued patents, each division or se|):u'ate jiatent asked for is not such a ficparate case, as to require the j)aynient of $25 on an appeal to the judges; but one appeal carries up the whole case, not a part ; and, notwithstanding that separate reissued jtatents may be granted. Sehhn, asaif/nee, J'Jx parte, 3IS. (App. Cas.) — MoKSELL, J.' ; D. C, 1801. 2. Duty of Commissioner of Patents, in cases of. 1. The Commissioner is bound under § 11 of the act of 1839, to furnish to the judges on appeal the grounds of liis decision touching the reasons of appeal. JCeniper, Ex. jutrte, MS. (App. Cas.) — CuANcii, Ch. J.; D. C, 18-41. 2. On an appeal to the judge under §11 of the act of 1839, the Commis- sioner of Patents is required to lay be- fore such judge all the original papers and evidence in the case, together with the grounds of his decision fully set forth in writing touching all the points involved in the reasons of appeal, to which reasons of a])peal the revision of the judge is to be confined. Gundell V. Parkhxrst, MS. (App. Case.)— CKAN(n, Ch. J. ; 1). C, 1H17. 3. When tlio Commissioiu-r has laidi before the judge the papers, evidence, Ac, with "the grounds of his decision," the case is no longer before the Commis- sioner, and the litigation is closed as between the appellant and the oftice. Aiken, Ex parte, MS. (Apj). Cas.)— CitANcii, Ch. J.; I). C, 18.50. 4. When a party has given notice of an intention to appeal from the atent issues, but un- t'l it is actually delivered. Ibid. 0. Under the act of 1839, allowing appeals to the chief justice of the Cir- cuit Court of the District of Columbia, and tlie act of 1852, authorizing like appeals to the assistant justices of the same court, the Commissioner of Pat- ents had no power to make an order, that on account of the infirmity of the cbief justice, appeals should bo taken to the assistant justices alone, or in default thereof that a patent should issue to the other party. Anon., Opiu. 39. — CusiiiNG, Atty. Gen.; 1853. 7. The Commissioner of Patents is to send to the appellate tribunal the reasons of his decision, in answer to the reasons of appeal, in the case of a single application as Avell as where tliere are contesting ai)25Ucations. Henry, Ex fe...^**^*; ■■i*«\ 'Www*^ 138 Al'PKALS, 15. 3. JL'llIHKICIUiN or JL'STK'KH ON Ali'KALH. \^ *'%#< jHirtr, ISIS. (App. C:i8.) — Mkuuiok, J.; 1). (J., iH5a. 3. Jurisdiction of Justices on Aj>- 2>eal. 1. Tho power of tlio justices of the Circuit Court on appeal from tlio docis- ion of tlio Conind.ssiouer of I'atonts, under J5 1 1 of tlio iiet of 1 S30, is eon- lined to the points involveil in the "reasons of appeal." lunipnr, Kx partt^ MS. (App. Cas.)— CuAxcii, Ch. J.; 1). C, J«41. 2. The revision of the judLCO on aj»- peal is eonfnied to the points involved in the reasons of appeal, and he is to revise the decision of the Connnissioiier only in respect to the points involved in the reasons of appeal. Arnold v. Jiis/ioj), MS. (Api). Cas.) — CuANcii, Ch. J.; 1). C, 1841. 3. If the Commissioner did not err in those jjoints, his decision nnist be alVirm- ed, even though the judge should be of opinion ni)on the evidence and merits of the whole case that such decision ■was wrong. Ilnd. 4. The provision of the statute that "the decision of the juilge shall gov- ern the further proceedings of the Com- missioner in the case" applies only to so much of the case as is involved in the reasons of appeal ; and the appeal itself can only be considered as an ap- peal to so much of the decision as is nifected by such reasons. Arnold v. Bishop, MS. (App. Cas.) — Craxcii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 5. If therefore after tlie judge shall have decided in favor of an applicant upon the points involved in his reasons of appeal, other sufficient reason?", renuun for rejecting the claim for a jiatent, un- touched by the decision of the judge, it wouM seem that the Connnissioner might still reject it. I hid. 0. The j>roceedings before tlie Com- missioner of Patents, and before the judges on appeal, are all initiatory ; all relating to the (piestion whether a pat- ent shall issue, and cannot alfect a j»at- ent already issued. I'otneroy v. Cim- irison, IMS. (App. Cas.) — Ckancii, Ch. J.; I). C, 1842. 7. The ])owers and jurisdiction given by the patent law to the judges on ap. ])eal are special and limited, and nuist be construed and exercised strictly. He can only decide such questions and ren- der such judgment as he is exjjres.sly authorized by the statutes to decide and render. I/nd. 8. The revision of the judge is to ho confined to the reasons of ajtpeal, and the grounds of the Commissioner's de- cision, required by § 11 of the act of 1839, are to be confined to the jjoiiits involved in the reasons of appeal. Smith v. Flic/ii)i(/cr, IMS, (Ajip. Cas.) — Ckanch, Ch. J. ; 1). C, 1843. 9. The revision of the decision ol' the Commissioner is to be "confined to the groumls of his decision, touching the j)oint8 involved in the reasons of appeal." Cochrane v. Waterman, IMS. (App. Cas.)— CuANCii, Ch. J. ; D. C, 1844. 10. The revision of the judge on ap- peal is limited to the pohits hivolved in the reasons of appeal, and the questions must bo decided according to the evi- dence ])roduced before the Commission- er. Warner v. Goodyear, MS. (App. Cas.)— Ckanch, Ch. J.; D. C, 1846. Perry v. Cornell. Ibid. — Crancii, Cli. J.; 1847. 11. The jurisdiction given to the judge under § 8 of the act of 183G, is broad enough to include the question Al'l'EALS, JJ. 3. idu JUIIISDICTION or JU8T1CKH, ON AIM'KAr.H. of intir/ircnce, nn M'oII as that of prior- iti/. Ami tlio question of jtrion'ti/ ol' rii^lit of invc'iitioii noci'ssiuily iiii|tli<'s inter/ rvMcc. Jiain v. Morne, iSIS. (App. Cas.) — Ckanoii, Ch. J.; D. (J., 1849. 12. IJut tlio intcrforouco montioiuMl in g 8 of llio act of 1H30, must lu; an in- li'ifciTuco in rosp('(!t to patoiitablo niat- ti'is, and the t-laiins of the applicants must 1)0 limited to tho matters specilic- fillv set forth as their respective inven- lions; and what is not claimed is to be considered, for tho jturpose of sucli in- terference, as disclaimed. ff)td. 13. Tiie decision of tho judges on appeal is conlined "to th« jjoinls involv- (mI in the reasons of appeal." Wins- Imo, Jvx parte, jNlS. (Ajtp. Cas.) — Ckanhh, Ch. J.; D. C, 1850. 14. The supervision of the judge is limited to the jjoints involved in the reasons of appeal. Aiken, Kx ^vtrtc {Propellers), IMS. (A[>p. Cas.) — Cuancii, Ch. J.; I). C, 1850. 15. It is immaterial what reasons the Commissioner assigns for his decision ; his reasons may be insufficient, and yet his decision be correct. Ibid. 16. The insufficiency of the Comniis- sioncr's reasons for rejecting an ap])li- ciilion is not in itself evidence tluat his decision is wrong, and is no cause for reversing it. Aiken, JSx parte {li. Ji. Car 1 1 7/t'(r/.s).— MS. (Ai)p.Ca8.)— Crancii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1850. IV. The filing of reasons of appeal in the office of tho Commissioner of .Patents is a proceeding over which the judge on apj;^il has no control. Wide y.Mdttheicis, MS. (App.Cas.) — Ckaxcii, Ch. J.;D. C, 1850. 18. If the Commissioner h.as received and filed the reasons of appeal, the judge cannot order him to strike them out. They must bt' UiXt'X and ilocided. Ihid. 10. 11)0 jtirisdicVlf/D of tho judge on a])peal is confined to tho reasons of aj)- peal, ami however worthy (»f coii>ithority can be exercised, I'xcept that expressly given, or fairly to be inferred. Ibid. 23. The judge can jtidicially know nothing of the case, until the appealing party i)resents liis petition for n revis- ion, which cannot be done until after a decision has been made against him, and he has declared his intention of ap- ])ealing, and filed his reasons of appeal. Ibid. ^ 24. The provision of § 1 1 of the act of 1839, requiring the judge to hear and determine appeals from the decis- ions of the Commissioner, " on the evi- dence produced before the Commission- er," is to be construed in connection wit1\ § T of the act of 1836, Avhich pro- vides th.at reasonable notice shall be given both to the party appealing and ^^0^W^, 7 Ww%s i i r ^»^» linn* i. ■i ' M'xaf Wk "O^^^ 0*:>r**Ci. At ■^n b;tg^M W ■hErfu. , ' it , WWww>. V^^'W^^^V;-' 140 APrEALS, JJ. n. jiumnrcTioN or jumtickh, ov AiTRAUt. \^*Mt^. tlio CominlMslonor, bo " that they may have an oj»|iurtiinily of fiiirii.sirni<^ tlit'iii, i. e. the board of oxainliitTH, with Huch facts and t'vidciico an I hey may drum ncccsHary to a just dci-isiofi." J'\iltZt .Ex p(irte,'^\^. (Apj). Cas.) — Mokhkli., T. ; 1). ('., iy53. 25. Thcirt! is nothing in thu repealing aetof IH.SO — whicli Hiihstituted tliejudge for the l)oard ofexaminerH — which takes away or impairs that right, but every reason to infer that it was intendeil to be saved to the fullest extent. Ibid. 20. Where in a case, a party has been prevented from producing before the Commissioner his proofs to sujtport his claim, it is the duty ( t" the judge to pur- sue, by reasonable regulations, similar to those directed by § 12 of the act of 1839, such a course as will afford the l)arty an opportunity to produce such proofs. Ibid. 27. In such a case, tho judge will make an order authorizing the party to take and file with his api)eal, evidence as to the originality and utility of his invention. Ibid. 28. IW 8 11 of the act of 1839, sub- blituting the judge in place of the board of examiners created by § T of the act of 1830, the judge succeeded to the same autiiority that such board possess- ed to require of the Connnissioner of Patents and examiners, "information relative to the sid)ject matter under con- sideration," and to the full extent. See- ley's Aop., MS. (App. Cas.) — Moksell, J.; D. C, 1853. 29. An examiner may therefore be in- quired of as to the nature and features of tho invention under consideration, and esscptial to the right claimed, and which may not be sufficiently set forth in the report of the Commissioner. Ibid. 3A. If luw references^ as grounds for the rejection of an application for a pat- ent, are made at the trial of lui appeal, before the judge, and are such as are material, they will be considered as having deprived the applicant of \m right of amendment secured by § 7 of the act of 1830, and in such ease the de- cision of the Commissioner will be re- versed, and he will be directed to pro- ceed with tho case anew. Jeirctt <6 llout^Ex jyarte^^\^. (App. Cas.) — Mou- siar,, J.; I). C, 1853. 31. The i)rovisions of § 11 oftheactof 1839, as to the examination, on appeal, of the Connnissioner or examiners of the Patent Office on appeals, must be con- sidered in connection With tho provision in § 7 of the act of 1830, as to the powers of the old board of examiners. Itich- ardsoii v. Ilirks, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoKSKr.L, J.; I). C, 1854. 32. The language of tho statute moans th.at the explanation authorized to bo required of the Commissioner and ex- aminers, may be so full and clear an ex- planation of the princijjles oi' tho thhv^, as to enable the judge didy to ajijiiy and weigh the evidence offered to su))- port the issue in the case, and is not to be limited to a mere exjiosition of the terms used, and such explanations so given, the judge is bound to respect as a part of the case. Ibid. 33. Tliejudge on appeals is only re- quired to examine the co>iclusio?i8 whicl. the Connnissioner of Patents may have arrived at in any given case, and not the processes or reasons by which such con- clusions may liave been attained. Sjicti' cer, Ux2M7'te, IMS. (App. Cas.) — Meu- rucK, J,; D. C, 1859. [I^ames v, liic/ir ards.—MERiiicK, J.; 1859.] 34. On appeal, the judge is not at liberty to look into every error of f;ict or law which may have been committed In the I liCCfl n/>, Hons of MS. (Aj IHOO. 3.1. Tl or to sen Ortlce to |ierts, an invoiilioii j)roof on I 3IS. (Ap 1801. 30. IIo pers and tho Com 11 37. Xei view a Ion or eiitcrtai case; (ho conolusive, judges. lia Cas.)— I)u 38. ITnd judge on a question of to dotermii titled to a quire into ces given in ia- pors Miul cviiN'ni'o which wore before tho Commissioner. 37. Neither Judjje on appeal can re- view a former decision of another judjife, or entertain another appeal, in the same case; tho former decision is final and conclusive, upon either of the other judges. Raymond, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cus.)— Dir-Ni-op, J.; D. C, 1801. 38. Under § 8 of tho act of 1830, the judge on appeal is not confined to the question ofpriority of invention, but ho is to deternuno Avhothor cither p.arty is en- titled to a patent. Ilis duty is to in- quire into all the facts and circumstan- ces given in evidence, which go to inval- idiito the claim of either applicant. Loverldf/ev.DutrherfMi^. (A|tp. Cas.) — DuM.op, J.; D. C, 1801. Dyaon v. Gamhril, MS. (App. Cas.) — Dunloi* J.; D. C, 1801. 39. The judges of tho Circuit Court by law can entertain no appeal except from the decisions of the Coniraissioner. Under the laws prior to 1801, all tho decisions of tho office, whether by examiners or tho oltl board of appeals, were in lata the decisions of the Com- missioner, -when sanctioned by him. Under that system, when a primary examiner refused a patent, or decided nn interference, and the ('oitimlssioner :ippr(»vod such decision, an appeal lay directly to one of tho judges. iSnoto- (fin v. J'iirce, MS. (App. Ciis.) — Dtx- i.op, .1.; I). C, IHOI. •to. Hut uiuler the new l:iw of 1801, th(! primary I'xaminers and the examin- ers in chief, are nil treated as jutlicial olllcors, hiiviiig power without control, within the sphere of their duly, to tho exercise of their independent judgment. Their acts aro not tho acts of tho Com- missioner, but their own acts. They jire no longer more organs of the Oom- missioner, but independent officers. Ho can only reach and overrule them when tlu'ir judgments como regularly before him on peal. Ihid. 41. The appe.'d to the judges still ex- ists, but it can now only bo exercised after the applicant has gone tho rounds of .all tho tribunals erected bj> the new law, and after the final decision by tho Commissioner. Ibid. 42. An api)licant must go from tho primary examiners by a{)poal to tho ex- aminers in chief, and from them by ap- peal to tho Commissioner, and lastly, from the Commissioner to the judges of the Circuit Court. Ibid. 4. " lieasons of Appeal,''^ sufficiency ^ t&c. 1. A reason of appeal should not be vague and unsatisfactory, but should in- volve some point affecting tho decision of the Commissioner. The reason that the decision of the Commissioner was in op- position to a clear apprehension of the merits of the case, is insufficient. Wins- loio. Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — CuAjJcn, Ch. J.; D. C, 1850. 2. An alleged reason of appeal, "that the decision of tho Commissioner was 1: *»*•>»*•, b.«t.-«^>. i 1 IfWKI .^C>?w. ■W)\ ^'m^jtih -y^^' ^^f^iittWWw^- .©Wwwww^. 143 Al'I'KALS, U. 4. IIKAHONH or AITKAI,, MirriCIKM'V Of. fi inconHUti'iit, M DftpoHod to pruct'dciiiN which havi* jjoviTiictl bclor*', im iiIho in- Biimcit'iit." Ibid. ;». iSnothcr rt'ani>ii ofn|ip('al \vii«,"that till' (h-ci-Hioii rHiinioiiri()rHkilt'iilaii(lcotii- pctt'iit, jiracllfal, ami wciciilit'u' nii'H, whn well' pcciiliaily <|ii!ililh'il In Jinl^c as to thi' iiiciits »»f the particular iiivcMliiiii." J/il'f,\hu\ iKiiiotd'thi'Hc n-aHoiiM iriv<»lv»'tl thu (piostioii of ii()V«>lty, and that the Dpinioii of Miich I'xpi'rts ooiild not alU'cf till' ////o/t of the Connnissioner ns to the intention of an invention cited as eauso of rejection, is not a ixood "reason of appeal." What- ever may have been his opinion, his de- cision may he correct. Ibid. 0. A reason of ap|)eal, "that the rea- sons assigned liy tlie Commissioner for rejecting a'l application, are irrelevant and do net apply to the snliject mat- ter," involves no point material to the case. A then, J'Jjc juirte {J'ropi Ihr), ^IS. (App. Cas.)— CuAMii, Ch. J.; I). C, 1850. 7. It is immaterial what reasons the Commissioner assigns for his decision ; his reasoning may bo insnfiicient, and yet his decision be correct. Ibid. 8. Insufficient reasons furnish no grounds for reversing his decision. Ibid. 9. The insufficiency of the Coinmis- filoner's reasons for rejecting an applica- tion for. a patent, is not in itself evi- dence that \m decifiiun U wrong, ntid is no caUNu for ruverHing it. Aikm Kx parte {li. li. Car M'/url), Ms. (App. Cns.)— CuANi 11, Cii. J.; I). C, 10. The filing of the reasons of n|>. peal in tliii office of the Commissioner of I'ateiits, '^s a procee(ling over whidi the judge on appeal has no control, ft' the Comini.'-sioner has received and liliil thu reasonn of appeal, the jn'^r^', ^IS. (App. Cas.) — .Mousem,, J.; D. C, 185-3. l.'b A reason of .appeal, " tliat the de- cision of theCommissioner is against evi- deiu^c and the weight of evidence," is iii- tiroly too v.igne and indelinite, within the provisions of ^ 11 of the act of 1H30, as a substantive reason of a]»peiil, "sjic- cilically set forth in writing." Doxkj- him V. BlakiutoH., MS. (App. Cas.)— Mkuukk, J.; 1). C, 1850. 14. No assigmnent is sufficiently spe- cific Avhich does not, with reasoiiablo certainty, i)oint out the precise matter of alleged error. Ibid. 15. The reasons of appeal should ho so expressed that the judge nuiy gather from their language what is meant by AIM'I.ICATIOX FOR PATKNT, A. 148 Y UKN TO UR UAItR. KfrKOT or ; RmOT or DBtAT IX MAKING. tlii'in, liiit tlu'y nt't'd not l»o ftccDrilini; to liny tiM'hniciil ruriiiiilu. /.niillii/ v. Jdmiii, MS. (A|»p. Ciw.) — MicuiticK, J.; I). C, IHOO. ft. JWdt'ti'c in cancn of Appml. I An ohjoction not taken iit tlu' hear- iiijf or tr'ml belorc tho CuniiuiMsioncr, iMiinot 1)1! uiiidt' on iippral from tlu* dc- cUion of (lie ('ouiini«*si(iiicr to tin- jikIl;*'. Smith V. FlioAeni/er, MS. (Ap|». Caw.) — CiiANdi, Cli. J.; I). C, |H4;J. 2. Tlio olli.'cr of tlu' Tiilint Olllcc, wlio may atli'nil litforo llu' Jiiil;;t', on an appeal, nndcr tlie provisions of ^ 11 of the act of 18:10, is not eonsidered as couiisol for the Patent Ollice, or as an advocate of either of tlio parlies liti- gant. He otdy attends for the purpose of exphiininj^ tlio deeision of the Com- missioner. J'trn/ V. Cormll, MS. (App. Cas.)— CuAN.-ir, Cli. J.; 1). t'., lt<17. 3. When an nppliealion is fuially re- jected, no new oath i» nooessary to en- nhle a party to appeid. (^rookcr, //.»• ivirh', MS. (App. Cas.)— Ckan( II, Cii. J.; D. C, 1H5(). t. No reply can ho admitted before till' jiidjjo on appeal, to the ''jxi'onnds oftlie C'ommissioner's decision," laid lie- fore the jndge ; .and no reply can he tiled ia the ollice of tlio Commissioner to ho recordcil uith tho proccedinjijs." Aiken's Appeal {R. Ji. Car WfuiU), MS. (App. Cas.) — CuANcii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1H50. 5. If contesting .applicants, in their proceedings before the Commissioner of Patents, or by stipulation in such pro- ceedings, have admitted any statement of facts, as identity of inventions, they cannot deny such identity by their rea- Bons of appeal, and seek a decision of the Judge of appeal thereon. Waih v, Maff/icwi*, MS. (App. Cuh.) — t'uAMcu, Ch. .?.; I). C., iHflO. (». Will'. her tho «leelHion of tho Cor>. missioiii'r is correct or orr«nieoiis !nn«*t di-peiid upon the evidence and proof-i before him. liiii/f/liH v. )'i)Uii;/, MS. (App.Cas.)— M<)iisi.:i.i,,.F.; D.C, 186S. 7. Till' tiling of the argunieiits on ap- peal, by the respi'ctive parties, within the time prescribed, may be dispfiineil with or excused on reasoimblo canao shown Ibr tho omission. iV. A'. S. V. Sloati, MS. (App. Cas.) — Moit- Hici.i,, J.; 1). C, 1H5:1. H. On appeal, attidavits cannot ))0 considered which were not taken by tho authority of the Cominissioiu'r, nor act- ed upon by him in forming his decision. ./iir/,-s<)HyJ'Jjr jiartr^M^. (App. Cas.)— MouKKi.i,, J.; I). C, 1850. !). If objcH'tion is not made to tho competency of a witness on bis exami- nation, and both parties examine him, it will be too late to raise the object ion as to his competency, on ap|)eal. Allen v. J/^r, ^IS. (App. Cas.) — Moiiseli,, J.; D. C, 1800. AITLICATION FOR PATENT. A, WnKV AND BY WHOM MADK; KfFECT of; Kffi:(;t of Dklay in making on PHOSKCLTINO 1 43 D. POWKIIS AND DUTIKS OF COMMISSION- EH OF PaTKXTS, on APPLICATION FOU AND IN OllAMlNO I'ATKXTS 119 C. W'miuRAWAL OF; Effect op 15.) A. WiiEX AND nv Avno:\t mapk; Ef- fect of; Effect of 1)i;iay in MAKiKQ on ruosiaiTixii. 1, Even •without a general use of an IT r I ^^9* iaJ i^j. *- - - 2: g sl Ir' 5»» IMki - VC «« iiiTm CVWw. V'ta"»' "l ^ 144 AI'PI.U'ATION KOU I'ATKNT, A. wiiax Ti) M ttAit*. wrmrt or\ wrmn or nii at im makihu. illNciltioii, willi (lie kliitwlnl^o nil ii(>nt of ilii* irivi'iitor, an iiiiri'iiMoiiiiltIc mill «-:iiiNi>li'i«, or tttiilty ilday in tiikiii^ out II |ial«>iit, iiiity JiMlly iiihI n|i)vn Irj^iil ])riri(>i|>l(*H Im> «'«)nHi(|«>ri>il iim luiioiuitiiiix to niutl«!tiii|^f, J.; Ta., IH'JT. !2. Tlionj^li till' tliscovcry ofa pat(«» in new, y«l if In- is K"'''y <»f iK'^liK'''"''' in prociiriii^ Ms [latKiiJ, l»y whii-li tin' invent ioii lias lii>coiiu< pulilicly known nnd nsuil hy any ihtnoiis, ho «-aii liavt> ii«) ri^lit of action for its iiifringciiiont. Whitnnj v. J'Jnitnrff, Hal.l., Illl.— Uai.kwi.v, J.; Pa., 1h:(1. 3. All a|i|>lica(ioii cannot ho matlo by ojo joint invt'iitor upon tlio nsNi^nnu'iit of tlio otiior, Imt nil concfrnetl in the invention iiiiiMt Join in tho applioation. Kewtoii''« CiiMf, 2 Opin., 671. — Tanky, Atty. (}i«n.; 18:»:). 4. Vigilance is noocssary to cntitio an iiidiviiliial to the privile^^es Heciirecl uii- ilerthe jiateiit law. Ho must h1u>w his ri;^ht to invention, and necure it in the moilo rotpjired hy law. And if tho in- vention, by frandnleiit means, shall be made known to tho public, hu should assert his right immediately, and take the necessary steps to legalize it. >S/i(iw V. Cooper, 1 Pet., 310. — McLkan, J.; Sup. Ct., 18.13. T). The Ht.itute docs not limit any time in which the inventor n.ust a)»ply for a patent, nor does it declare a forfeiture by reason of any delay. Delay, there- fore, is unimportant, unless it amount to evidence of abandonment of the claim, ami that is proper matter for the consideration of a jury. Jfildreth v. Jlenth^ MS. (App. Cas.) — Ckancii, Ch. J.; 1). C, 1841. 0. Tho right of tho first inventor is not 'ost merely by lapse of time between the invention and appliealion for n pat. eii> unless there han been Noine inter. mediate public use by tin* applicant, or by hin coiiMent ; nnd (•Npecially, where he hiiM been honit jltln taking iiieaMurei to improve or perfe<'t his invention, and to prepar«> for applying for taking a put« ent. //'/(/. 7. There iit no act of Congresn that makes delay in taking out n patent fitnl to the (list inventor, unless he abamloiii his discovery to the publii-, or by hii "consent" allows it to be put in " piih. lit^ tiHO or on sale," for two years belbro taking (»ut a patent. Allin v. lUnut, 'i Wood.it ISIin., 141, 143. — WooKiu'UV, ,1.; Ma?-., IHKJ. 8. An inventor should notify the pub- lic of his claim, by a caveat or applica- tion llli'd in the I'atent <* •. I bit if such claim, though iiifoi s follow- ed up with reasonable uiugence, anil eventually the patent j'vanted, it will prevent any right being accpiircd hy strangers in the mean time. Spurk- mun V. //I'l/i/i/is, 1 IJIatehf., 2Ub.— IlKiTS, J.; N. Y., 1840. 0. An applicant for a patent will not b.j «lefo!ite\t. Cum.)— Cham. II, I'li. J. ; I). *.'., IM47. lU. llttt'oru a puti'iit \n ^rn».t«r( in no liiw that r«*i|iiir«!H tlin iii'Ht iiivontor to t)i-«i'loN«i liiM invi'iitioit williin itii)' liiii- ili'd tiiiif, nor ih tlicrcuny liiiiitation iiii- li-iiit till* Iu|m(i of titiH) irt Hutllficiit to xliow an alMiiiilonnifiit, wliicli U u ()U«>h- tioii for a jury, ffiiif. 14. Tilt' a|)|ili<-ation may l>u ■-(•ncwt'il from timo to timt', on tlu> Kiinm or addi- tioiinl itvidt'iicc, thu {iruvioiiit luiarin^N niid dfciNioiM creating no bur to a far- ther invostif^ation. (Jui/ v. ('onuU, 1 lllatilif., 500.— Nklhov, J.; N. V., IH li>. lA. If an inrontor uinu!(*(>NMarily dt'ffi Iiix n))|ilifatiun for a patent, and Hutlt'r liin iiivi'iition to j^o into iiso, except for tlio pnrposu of perfeetinj; it, and tenting ifH utility l)y proper expuriinentH, and beyond what lio haH roanon to buliuve necuHsary for thuso piirpoHes, hiH patuut IN void. Wiiuins V. St'hen. and IVoy Ji. Jloitil, 2 Hlutclif., 291, 300.— Nki,- SO.V, CoNKMNti, JJ. ; N. Y., 1851. 10. If a party, who daims to bo thu first inventor of a machine, nogloct to apply for a patent therefor, with n knowledge that another itt making ap- plication for u patent for the same in- vention, Hueh conduct will tend to dis- credit liis testimony, as to priority of in- vention by him. McCormick v. Ketch- nm, MS. (App. Cas.) — Morskix, J.; D. C, 1853. 17. Pecuniary inability is a sulcicnt excuse to an uiventor for not pr jhocu- tiiig his invention, or carrying out an intention to secure letters patent there- for. Yearsley v. Urookfiehl, MS. (App. Cas.)— Mousui.r,, J.; D. C, 1853. 10 IH. Tim proiiniiiryf»mbitrraN«mi>nt 4 uf an inventor will exciiNe, to Home exit-nt, hilt huiht'M In not applying for a patent. *V. A'. .S.m/i i'l: V. Sionn, .MS. (.\pp. ('a».) -.M.HiHKi.i,, .l.i I). I'., \Hy,\. Il». .Ml le lapMi of lime l»elweun the making of an invention and tho nppli- I'lilion for a patent, In not an abandon- ment. Sli/ihtilltntt V. Ilnyt, .MS. (App. C'aH.)- .MoitMKi.i,, .f.; I). ('., lM."»t. 20. Slight eireuiiiNtaneeH are Nnlllrieiit to rebut any preHiimption ot abandon- ment, [hill. 21. Parol evidence in not adiniK'^iblu to hIiow when a patent was applied t'or. Wiiyn6 V. Winter, (J .MeLoaii, 345. — .M« I.K.VN, ,F. ; Ohio, 1m53. 22. The Patent OlHee (•ontains written vidcnce of the fact, and it miiMt bu proved by such evidemie. //>/f which the Patent Ortice can take notice. Hunt v. Howe, MS. (App Cas.)— MouHKLL, J. ; D. C, IH.55. 24. There is no time limited within which an inventor is t(» disclose his in- vention before application for a patent. His right can be affected by no lapse of time short of that which will be siifll- cient to show an abandonment of his claim, during which time no subseipient inventor, however original or homxjlhy can deprive hinx of his priority. tSte- phcns v. Salisbury, MS. (App. Cas.) — MousKLL, J.; I). C, 1855. 25. If an inventor after his invention is perfected unreasonably delay his ap- plication for a patent, and others, before such application, actually perfect and apply to practical use the same inven- tion, and give the knowledge thereof to the publio, and the former, after a knowledge of such subsequent invon •^•riii,,; /!^^<^ "•^s... ' I ^■■. •*i^ ■ W.- NINC^ *^ ii' y^i % 140 ArPLICATIOX FOR PATENT, A. iH M fi m ^viiK.v TO itr, Mvni;. kffkct of; kkfkct of hfi.ay in makincj. tion ami use fall to iiiuku objection and aiij)ly witliout unreasunal)h( delay for a p'.ti'nt, he canni/t' sustain tlio patent lie may afterward obtain, l)ecauso lie has failed to give to the public that con- sideration for tlie f^rant of exclusive j»rivilefj;es, upon which all valid patents must be based, llnnsom v. 2[aijor, tCc, N. York, MS.— IlAi.r., J.; N. Y., 1850. 20. The object of the patent laws being not only to benelit the inventor, but also the public or community at large by the use of the invention, after the monopoly has terminated, it follows that an inventor who designedly and ■with the view of apjilying it indetinilely and exclusively for his own profits, withholds his invention from the public, comes not within the policy or objects of the constitution or acts of Congress, and is not entitled to favor if < luring such concealment another person should lind out and bring into use the same in- vention. Kendall V. Winsor,2\\lo\f., 328.— Daniel, J.; Sup. Ct., 1858. 27. ]>ut this does not forbid a delay requii^iite for completing an invention or testing its value or success ; nor forbid a discreet and reasonable forbearance to proclaim the theory or operation of an invention duiing its progress to com- pletion, and preceding an application for protection in such discovery. Ibid., 828,329. 28. An inventor may also forfeit his rights by a wilful or negligent i)Ost- ponement of his claims, or by an at- tempt to withhold the benefit of his improvement from the public until a similar or the same improvement should have been made and introduced by others. Ibid., 329. 29. Mo particular time is limited by the statute Avithin which an inventor it ought to bo done within a reasotudile time,' what is or what is not a reasonable time difficulties, if too long continued, iu the way of asserting and proving prior- must make application for a patent, yet I ity over another inventor who aiiplies for •^Wi APPLICATION FOR PATENT, A. 147 WHEN TO DK MADK. KFFKCT OF; EFFECT OF I)KI,AY IN IIAKIXU. n patent. Bnheoi'k v. DegaxcVy IMS. (App. Ciia.)— Mkuui'"{, J. ; D. C, 1859. 35. Wlieii one inventor h:ia knowl- edge that anotlier has made applieiition lor, and has received a patent for the same invention which 1ms also been re- issued, and makes no further claim until after such reissues have been obtained, his want of diligence in prosecuting his application will work a forfeiture of his rif^ht to a patent. Wickersham v. Sin- ger, MS. (App. Cas.') — Mkkrick, J.; ' . C, 1859. 30. W. made application for a patent ill 1851, and in the same year withdrew his application and received the return fee, and took no further stens till 1858. S. had made ajjplication foi a patent for the same inventicr; in 1850, and obtained a patent therefor in 1 85 1, which had been re-issued in 1854 and 185(5. Of ail this W. had knowedge. Held, that W. had not pursued due diligence in applying for and prosecuting his application for a patent, and had forfeited his right to II patent. Ibid. "u. By an application filed in the Pat- ent Office, the inventor makes a full disclosure of his invention, and gives public notice of his claim for a patent. It is conclusive evidence that he does not intend to abandon it to the public. Adams v. Jones, MS. — Guieu, J. ; Pa., 1859. 38. Where a person has made an ap- plication for a patent for his invention, tlio delay interposed either by the mis- takes of the public officers, or the de- lays of courts, and not by any laches of the applicant, cannot aftect his riglits. Rid. 39. Where A made an application for a patent in 1850, Avhich was refused, and an appeal taken to the Circuit Court, whiclnvas not decided until 185G, when the decision was affirmed, but the origi- n.al ajiplication w.ns not withdniwn, and the applicant continued to hisist upuu his right fo a jiatent, and a new Com- missioner of I'atents jterceived his nov- elty and granted him a patent, 7/c7plication for a pat< ent, and the same thing was patented to another, and used under such patent for eight years, and then such inventor asked for a patent, Held, that by rea- son of his laches he was not entitled to a patent. Ibid. 52. Where a patent was granted to A, and the same had been publicly and openly used under circumstances that showed that B must have known it, and without objection from B, and li after- ward, and just before the expiration of two years from the time of the granting of the patent to A, applied for a patent for the same thing, Held, that B must be presumed to have acquiesced in the use by A, and that such acquiescence was a statutory bar to the claim of B, and notwithstanding B had filed a ca- veat in 1848, and had renewed it with- in a year before he made application for a patent. JSeech v. Tucker, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoRSELL, J. ; D. C, 1860. 53. Decisions in EUithorpe v. Hobert- son, MoRSELi., J., 1868, and Wicker- sham v. Singer, Merrick, J., 1859, and Spear v. Stuart, Dunlop, J., 1859, as to forfeiture of i-ight to a patent ap- proved. Sturtevant v. Greenoiigh, MS. (App. Cas.) — Merrick, J. ; D. C, 1860. 54. Long delay and gross neglect on the part of an inventor to give the public the benefit of his invention, by promptly presenting it, after it is per- fected, to the Patent Oflice, will work a forfeiture of his right to a patent. Loveridge v. I>utcher, MS. (App. Cas.) — DuNLOP, J.; D. C, 1861. 65. Where an inventor suffered his claim to remain before the oflice for APPLICATION von PATENT, B. 14!) DUTIES or COMMlSaiONER OX; AKD IN OIIANTIXO PATENTS. more than fivo years, as a rejected ap- plication, without any attempt in the interval to protect his rights, Jlcld, that he had forfeited his right to a patent. Raymond, L. JSx parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Mkkuick, J. ; D. C, 1861. 50. A negligence in secreting and failing to patent an invention for more than two years after its discovery, for- feits all right to claim a patent. Even the filing a caveat, if filed more than two years after such discovery, will not save the rights of the inventor. Snotoden v. Pierce, MS. (App. Cas.) — DuxLOi', J.; D. C, 1801. 57. And it seems that a neglect to contimio experiments, or to use any means to perfect an invention during that period, would bo equally fatal, or would not stand in the way of a subse- quent original inventor, who had con- ceived and diligently pursued the same invention and obtained a patent there- for. Jbid. 58. Where an inventor, who first con- ceived the idea of an invention, did not apply for a patent until about a ycur and a half after another had conceived the same idea, and made application for and obtained a patent for the same in- vention, Held, that the former one by his delay had forfeited all right to a patent. Walker v. Forbes, MS. (App. Cas.)— DuNLOP, J. ; D. C, 1801. B. Duties of Commissioner ox Ap- plications FOB, AND IN Granting ■ Patents. 1. Under the patent laws patents can- not be withheld on moral considera- tions, under the act of 1793, if the re- q-'Jred allegation and oath have been made, a suitable specification filed, and a model deposited. McDonaUVa Case, 1 Opin., 170. — PiNOKNKY, Atty. Gen. ; 1812. 2. There is no limitation of time with- in whic>. a putcnt must be taken out, after specification filed. Anon., 5 Opin., 701.— Rush, Atty. Gen.; 1814. 3. The duty of the Patent Oflico, and of the secretary of state, is confined to issuing patents in the cases and with the forms prescribed by law, and having tlono this, their duty is at an end. It is not their duty, nor that of the At- torney-General, as their law adviser, to determine what rights are conferred by the patents granted, or what will amount to a violation of those rights. These are questions to bo settled by the courts and juries. N'oursc's Case, 1 Opin., 575.— WiuT, Atty. Gen. ; 1822. 4. The authority to issue patents is a limited one, and the party must bring himself within the terms before ho can derive any title to demand or hold a patent. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet., 18.— Story, J.; Sup. Ct., 1829. 5. The department acts rather minis- terially than judicially in granting pat- ents. A patent issues upon the repre- sentation of the party, Avithout entering into an examination of the question of rights conferred by the patent. All the jH'oceedings are ex parte, except in the case of interfering applications. Anon,., 2 Opin., 455. — ^Taney, Atty. Gen.; 1831. 0. A patent may lawfully issue, when all the forms prescribed by law have been complied with, without inquiring whether it will confer any right on the patentee ; that is for the decision of the courts. Ibid., 455. 7. The act of Congress directs patents to be issued on certain conditions ; these must be complied with in order to give feXWv U>Mf^ u ■■■ sM i ,^^W**'W*''*'' ',WW>^>- l.iO AITMCATION KOll TATKNl', 15. UlTTtKH -)r OOUMIHNIONHR ON; AND IN UlUN'I'iNU {'ATKNTH. it» ^^W k- ^%;^.| .C'W nctiou to till' H)i('i'i;il |irry ap- plicant, but only to certain applicants, and tlie party applyiiiLj niiisl prove tiiat he is williin the th'scription specilied. Aixni.,, 'J Opiii., fill. — Tanicy, Atty. (o'li.; ISH'-'. 10. Tatents camiot he ,Ljrant,ed to every applicant, hut only to such as show tiionisolves to he within the de- scription of the statute, as entitled to receive a ])atent. Fhiif. 11. Under the act of 170;J, tho Becre- tary of state, in issuint; patents, may he t'onsidercd as a ministerial ollicer. If the ]>reri>(piisilesof the law an' i-omplied •Nvilli, ho can exercise no judij;ment on the question, whether the patent shall be issue*!. lie can exercise no powers but such as are u;iven him. Grdiit v. Jidi/inoiuf, G Pot., 'J J I, L'lL'.— Mak- siiAi.i,, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., IS.S'J. IJ. The Commissioner is bound to issue a patent in the case, and in the circumstances stated in § 7 of the act of lt^;Ul, He has in such a case no discre- tion. lliUrt'th V. Heath, 3[S. (App. Cas.)— CuAMii, Ch. J.; 1). C, 1811. i;^. The dictum of SrouY, J., in Bod- ford \. Ifiad, 1 :\ras., 'MH (1^1^)' <'>!>» "the lirst inventor who h;is j>ut the invention in practice, and he only, is entitled to a patent," is wholly inappli- cable to the question whether the Com- missioner of Patents shonld issue a pat- oriiijT the question whether a patent HhoultHn: iH.iiKi/, hut whether it shoiiitt bo iiivalidatj'd by prior use. //jid. 14. Any mailer of defence, which it \h the peculiar province of u jury ti. decide, and whi(;h is not in |) 7 uf the act of Ih;JO made a ground for the refu- sal of a patent by the. CommisHioner, Hliould be lell by him to bo decided bv u jury in an action at law. J hid. If). 15 7 of the act of ]8:Ul refers to 5^ 0, and a patent is to bo i.ssuoil only to (IiC diHcovorer of some new and useful art or improvement; therefore, upon an application for a patent, the Commissioner is to decide in the fust place, whether the invention is new and the proper subject of a patent; if not, he is hound to refuse it, althou;j;h it mav not be liable to the i)articular objections specilied in >? 7 of the act of I8;t(). JuiiHjH'i; Ax jKirrc, MS. (App. Cas.) — CuANcii, Ch. .1.; I). C, 1841. lli. The Commissi(merof Patents may reject a claim for ii pat«'nt, even :iftcr a tlecision by the jiidj^e, on appeal in favor of the applicant, upon tho points in- volved in his reasons of appeal, if other sulHcient reasons for such rejection re- main, and which arc imtouched by tho decision «)f the judge. Arnold v. JUsJi- <);), MS. (App. Cas.) — Ckanlii, Ch. J.; I). C, 1841. 1 7. Tho proceedings before the Coin- missituier of Patents, and before the judges on appeal, are all initiatori/ — all relaliug to the question ■whether a pat- ent shall issue : they cannot atiect a ]tat- ent ".Iready issued. Ponicroy v. Con' ni.foii, ^IS. (App. Cas.) — Ckancii, Ch. J.; 1). C, 1842. 18. When a ]>atent lias issued, the jurisdiction of tho Commissioner is ex- hausted. He has no furth-M- control over eiit} Mr. Justice Story Avas not consid-l it, except xuider § 13 of the act of 183G, APPLICATION Foil PATENT, IJ. 151 liUrilM or OOUUIHHIONKK ON; AND IN UHANTINO PATKNTH. wlu'ii it iH ino)>eriiliv(» by roaH(»ii ofadc- IVclivo or iiisiinicii'tit, spccitiratioii. //>/(/. 11). Tlio uutliority of tlio CommisMioii- cr of i'litt'iits (o issuo patents is not of tho nalurn i>l' jiirisdi^'tion, in itH coin- iiioii law and tccliiiiital acceptation. Tint doctriiio appurtaining to acts or ju Kucli judgment must av(!r and prove that the tribunal had jurisdiction ill the nuitter, does not apply to his acts. Wilikrw. McCWmii'k, 2 IJIatdd"., ;n. -jJinTH, J.; N. Y., \H\iS. i;0. Proceedings before the Conirnis- HiontM- of Patents are initiatory. The question is, " whether the patent shall be granted," not " Avhet her it shall bo va- cated ;" and a patent may be granteil or refused upon loss evidence than would he re((uired to sustain or amend it. Vt'iry V. Cornell, MS. (App. Cas.)— CuANcii, Ch., J.; 1). C, 1847. 21. Some of the provisions of the act of IBiiCi, give a yv^^/.v* judicial character to the action of tho Connnissioner of Patents in granting a patent; ami it has accordingly been generally lield, that a patent is to be taken as prima facie evidence of the novelty and use- fulness of the invention spocilied in it. Wilson v. Jiarimm, 1 Wall, Jr., 349. — Kane, J.; Pa., 1849. 22. The hearing before the Commis- sioner of I'atents, on an application for a patent, is infornud and summary, and not final. Gmj v. Cornell, 1 Blatchf., 609.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1849. 23. The power vested in the Com- missioner of Patents, to issue patents for inventions, exists in full force for ex- amination and final decision, imtil the patent shall have actually issued ; and is not controlled or concluded by inter- vening or interlocutory opinions given b proceedings, as in cases of interfe- rence, &v., had or taken during the ex- amination and prior to the final deter- iiMiiatiou and issuance of the ])atent. \V. Undi^r ^ 1 of the act of 1836, upon an ox.anunation of an ap])lication for a patent, if it appears that the mat- ter for which tho })at(uit is claimetl, had not been invented or dis(!overed by any person in this country jirior to the in- vention or discovery by the applicant, or had not been patented or described in any printed publication, or had not Iteeu in pid)lic use, or on sale, with tho con- sent, and allowance of the applicant, it is^Ac (/«<»/ of the Connnissioner to grant a patent, if, in his opinion, the thing is anjficienth/ useful or important, Aik- en, J'Jxpartc {Car Wheels), MS. (A[»p. Cas.)— CiUNcii, Ch. J. ; I). C, 1850. 20. Since the act of 1830, the Com- missioner of Patents .acts fwawi judicially on the subjects of originality and novelty and utility of invention. lie is bound to inquire and decide these (piestions be- fore granting a patent. Such action, however, being ex parte, is not conclu- sive on those who are not parties to tho proceeding. Goodyear t. l>ay, MS. — Gkieu, J.; N. J., 1852. 27. Upon an application for a patent, tho question for the Commissioner to determine is, whether the applicant is the first inventor of the thing for Avhich a patent is sought ; and testimony show- ing that another is the first inventor, is properly received, though such teeti- Fli Tj Mp:, ^.:^^^, M^w^>,;; 1A'2 AIM'I.U A'lloN l'0|{ IVNTKNT, II. ItUTIM or UMMMIMIIINMONi AMU IN UUANTIMU PATHHm %. lUiiiiy iiii^lil im'tiii ri^liH nf mik'Ii olIuT |i:iny (o II |fiti'iil, if nil ii|>|(li<'!i tiiMi 1»y liiiit for ii |iMt<>n) wih niiitcr iimi Hir\. (>' \,il, MS. (A|>|). I'UH.) MoHHMi., .1.; H. ('., iHr.M. tfH. 'riicii' Ih itoMiiiij; in ||ii> twin oC Conoii'sM wliirli ii'miin'M lliiit ii |t;i(t'ii1 hliiiiilil li«> JMstii'il \\illiiii liny ^rivt'iitiinc, tit\iti is lil« |iiisl|)itn<>nii niiixj;i'>-)iiin «'itlnM' nl' llit> n|>|>lit!int or llii> oMicc. O'lullhf v. Jf<>)\>>i, |."i How., |'2(t. - (Jhiku, .).; Siiji. 'Jt>. Il liii>< alwiiyH lii'fn (lio |inn'lii't', wIhmi ;'. iorrl ,M piitnil is ilcHJit'il, (o dc l;iy lli(> is^niiio nl" u icilcnl here, nl'tcr !\]>|iIi(!iiiou liltil. lor ti'.'ir of iiijiiiiiif^ NUi'li I'on'ion i(|t|>li«'iilioii. //)/v7i »■(»(•«,<,. 'is ni;iy go (o show, lli.il I'of jiiiy ol" (Ii(> ciniscs 8l:i(('(l ill J; " ol' llic !i.'( of is;i(». he is not cnlilh'il 1o ;i pMlcnt. so |li;i( lie iii.iy be nlilc to ;inu>ii(l liis s|n'iMlic;itioii so as t<> iiicliiili' only wIimI Im iiimv. Jcii'rft if" /»*.».»/, /•> fuirfr. MS. (A|i|>. Cm*.)— >Ioi:si.:m,. .1.; I). l\, I.S5M. :U. ir new r('r«'n>iuM's, wliicli .•iro ni;i- lorijil, ;ir«< iiwido on tlic trial of an ap ponl, tlu'V will l)t< coiisiiloivtl as liavinu: »l<'|>ri\<'(l till' a]t|>!ii','int of his riirlil of anuMiilmoiil sccnriMl liy i^ 7 of ilu' act o\' 1 SMd.aiid in siicli cast' tli(> tltvision ot'llio (.'oininissioiuir will In* rrviTscd. aiiil li(< will 1)0 (liroctotl toproi'i'i'd willi tl'.' i*asi> aiiow. //»/(/. '.V2. Tlio |iroi'('('(Iiiigs lu'forc flio (\>ni- niissioncr aro initiatory, M.nd fVoni llic uaturo of tlio oaso, not nnliko tlu>|>rao- tio«> in tlu' inoipiont stair«'« of many otluT allowoil oas(>s. >'<>/i». Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,, .1.; 1). itit. Till' ('oiiiiniHHiiiiiiM- of I'litfiitM, ii|, to 1|m> inoini'iil of isNiiiti^ ii |iiiti'til, lnm a ilisi'ii'tion to iflii'itr ii imini>, Im'Imii' i|i>- ciili'il liy liiin, ami oii^lil to do no, iiniil li«> Ih < Into inventor, to wlioni aloii)' tlii> piifiMil oiitrlil to Ih> isHin'd. Iiiitifi\ /•> futtif, MS. ( \p|i. ('as. ) DiNi.or, .1.; h. ('., IM.'-.I. ;U. {} H of ill*' (Id of IH.'IU is, Imvv t'M'r, satislit'd liy giving one trial ln>. IwiM'ii till' Haino paitii'M, on llii> huiidi HIllljlM't. tfifi/. :i'i. 'I'll*' jiivisdii'tion of tlii< Connnis- sioiior of I'atiMilN in diMi'miiniiig as In tlio issuing of a patciil is ii liniilrd oiii<, litit is to Ik' iindi'istood, iiiit only iVmn « lial is I'xprcssly Hinted in tlic statiilr, Itiit aNo from wliat onglil iii>n>HH,'nilv to l)t' infiM'riMl, as alisoliilo witliiii its proper limits as tliat of ii liilmnal ol' general jiirisdielioii. ffmif v. //mir, MS. (App. Cas.) MoiiHKii, ,1.; h. C, IH.''):). ;t(t. 'I'lie Coniinissioiier of I*nlenls, in ishning letters patent does not warrant the same, nor does the patent hind the government more than it does private persons; bill the valitlily of siieh pat- ents is o|)en to impiiry, eitln-r in whole or in i-iil, whether at the instiinee of pri\ale persons orof fln< I'liited State^j. A patent does not eoneliide any hodv. }f,>rf<»>\t CiSf', H Opin./JVT. — CUiNiiiNd, Atty. (Jen.; IH,-.(t. .'<7. On an npplie.'itioii for the issue of a i)atenl, it Ih the duty of tln> Coinniis. sioiier to deeide all tpiestions, holli of law and fael, which go to eslahlish the right, or the ahseiiee of right, in tlic applieant to a patent. Murry v. Trot- ter, MS. (App. ('as.)— Dun 1,01', J.; 1). (\, IStW). ;!S. A ("'ommissioner must abide by the deeision of his ])redeeessor as ti) any matter adjiidie.ated njioii, wliilo that AIMMJCATION van I'ATCNTM. C lAfl uiiriiiinwKi, or, AND rrrKirr ttirMvur. i\o('\>i\nt\ \n iitiri'VfTwi'fl liytitiy ('n?ii|ii'i( nl (•ninl. /.'irntri\ /•,> fmiif, MS. (A|>|>. (!iiH,) iM'Nii.r, .1. ; \K ('., |M(IM. ;Mt. WIumk Ik riiriMiT tlfciMinii ol' it ('iiiiiniiMHioiiri' itM ti) II |iiii tii'iiliir iiiii'(l)'i IH llll)lp|l< iI.mI f I'liiii iiii'l iriimiiiM HUH' V(>i'N(>il, iiikI tlio ii|i|ilir!itiiili In luti. willi tiniwn, HiK'li iIiii'Imhiii ih liiixl lll|^ l(|liM|iiriil (*i>iiiiiii'4MiiMM>r, iiikI III! iiiii iiiil nilliilfiiilly i'4\v iiml ri'VM'Hn it. Siin/iititH, l!x pnrtv, MS. (A(i|i. Chh.) IhiNi.or, .?.; I>. (!., |hi||. I'. WiriiKriAWAt, or An-i.triATioN ; KirpiCrl' Mir, I. A t'iiv«'iit«ir liiiviiiir |irii('m<(|oi| liy Ntiiliito, ill niMilioii to llic (Wfiily r('i(Mir(M| on (lie rnvnil, is I'll lillcil, ii|Miii H ri'ji'i'duii < if hi M lllltlll 4. Tlirrolunn liiw nllowliii; finivi'fitnr III willi'liiiw liny |t'ii(iM will Im' ('oiiNidiTcd UN n liiiiit iiliiiiiiloiiiiiciit of tlii< f'iii'ili)'r pi'imp* nilioii nf (li(< ciiiiiii, mikI fllirts iiii mi- lir)> cxliiirrKiti lit' nil iiDilirlion (miviri^ niiy |irivili'>^«'H iiikIit |^ 7 of tln' iirl oC iH.'ilt), mill wliirli «<4iritiMl li<> ri'vivi'fl iiy miy iii'w ii|i|irn'iilioii. It in not n morn n'liiif|iiiMliiiM'Mt oCmiy wiiliilrtiwiil of nil ii|i|irK'iiliMri iiI'liT ri'liirii oC |iiiil of till' |inl»'nt Ifio \n not ilKi'Jt' nn iilinndontin'iit or 'li' iiiililic, liy fnirroimfliiij^ ('irciiiiHtiiiK'CR, nii'l to I'liliiiii lor II |int)'iil, to ili'iiiiitiil II n liiiti of Iwi'iil V uolliirN. Hitn. i)i III., 'A'l — OliHiiiNd, Ally. Ui'ii.; IH5.'I. '2. Tim |iroviHiiiiiH of ^ 7 of tlie net (if |h:i(1, iih to willi(lriiwii!M, npply l tlie oiilli of iiiteiitioii to hecoine ii citizen, or oMierH the NiilijectH of any foreijrn ^ovoriinient. /I)i,f., :iH. It. Kvery applieiint, for a patent Ikim ii rlL^ht to withdraw liin application, mid (leiiiand the rcHliiration of two tliinlH of the p;it(* lieeii had on his app!i(;a- tioii, as after it lias taken place. J^ur- risk lis Kci'lcr'H ('im<\ 7 Opiii., .'I!l4. — CusuiNiJ, Ally. (Jen.; Im">5. I'lll Ih I'll cipiivocal act, to lie interpn lie iiffi'ited upon a second aiiplicalioii liy the Hiilisecpient (oiidiict of the |iarly, his diligence or his nej^lcct, and delay, in the Riime manner as his coni]iici \h to he weiijhed in regard !/» nn orij^innl ap- plicaiion. WirhirHhtnn v. Shnjrr, ,MH (App. (.aH.) — Mkiiuick, J.; !).(!., in,';rt. 7. The wilhdriiwnl of an applicatirm and receivini^ the fee retiirnalile there- on, and allowini^ the case then to stand (I niiiiiher of years hefore further aetion, will he coiiHid(!red an aliandonment of the invention: ft Hiihsefpient apfilicatiori for a patent for tlie same invention will lie refused on the ground of such ahnn- dfiiimeiit. Itdhr'n'k^ Ex jtnrfi,, MS. (App. Cas.)— Mki{UI*;k,J.; D.CJ., ]H«0. H, If a party, iijion a mistaken rejeo tion of his claim hy the I'atent Office, withdraw his application, and reccivo the return fee of tiJO, an'l actinj^ under such mistake of his rij^hts, occasioned liy the error fif thf; I'nteiit Office, suflFer m •ill »♦ *i „ 5?;.-.., :&,-. 'CfiS* 1^ w" ■I «1 r I '*-C. ,s^rN ^ "Ni^. #1 jU.i ' ^fr^^ r » .M Airr. WHAT M| WHIN 1'ATaMTABI.R. 'la LJ' \m iiivfiilioii lo i^n inli) imlilic iimc, i'vcii fol' S«'\('IIll« \<'!irH, Mini liniTWIinl, ll|Mt|l • liMi-ovciiii^ Ills iiiiHiiikt', ii|>|ily lor iiml olttaiii :k |i:tli'iit, tli«< u illiiii'awiil iiihIit hii«-li ciiriiiiiNtiinccs will not lio an nliiiti- (Iniiincnl of liiN ri^lil ; init llic hocoihI np|)lit':ili<>ii, h\ opcriitioii of law, rclalcN liark Id (Ik' ilali< oI' llit< lii'sl M|)|>lii*al inii, HO MM to ('III liirrcitiiro »liirli «)tlit>rwist> would liiivt< lia|t|)fiii'il Ity tlic loii^ ind'cmiiliali' piililic use. Il. 0., IHUO. It. WluTc 11)1 invtMtlor inado lui iippli- «'M'iou I'lir ;i palciit lor lii:^ invfiilioii, lliroiiuli ail alloiiicy, to whom lit' pivc ]>ow(>r to willulraw hiu-Ii application, ami till' altornoy, nl'icr a roji't-lioii of tlu> appiii-atioii. witlidrcw niicIi applica- tion; ami aHcrw ,\r(l, !il)oiit two years tlicrcal"l(amloiimenf, prudiiced l»y the withdrawal ot'siich lirst ;ipplic!ition, // parte, MS. (App. Cas.)- :MiM{sr.i,i,, J.; 1). C\, i.SOO. 10. A rcjectci,f. I'J. 8 1 of tho act of isnn lives what is a rcasonaltio lime. There is no rea- son why a reiumed application Hhould have more than two years allowed it, computinij; the time from the dale of the wilhdriiwal. I^oth classes of appli- cations, original and renewed, are ap- plioatioiiH forpateiilH, and come within the letter and spirit of the Htalute. l;i. Hut such renewed applii'alionimmt lu>m:id<' to the Patent ()l1ic«' within sucli time. Assertions «)f claim lothiid per- sons, or in other Mays, will not liesulli- cient. No one can prevent the liar el' limitation attaching by outside continu- ous claims; he nuisl assert his ri;.fhls in court, within the prescribed time. J/nd Aim See also Effkct ; PinNoirLi:; ruocKss. 1. A patent may be for a now and tiseful art ; Imt it must be practical, — it must bo applicable and roterablo to siMuelhinuc which may ])rove it to bo iisetul. .I'Jmtis V. J'Jaton, Pel. C (\, :M1. — Wasminotov, J. ; Pa., l^Ki. 'J. Whore a pal»>i\t was for an ini- jirovomcnt in tho art of makini^ nails, by moans of a machine, wlooh cut ami headed tho nails by one oi>oration, IIiLlj that it was \w{ moroly a patent for tho machine, and therefore that it was of no importance that tlie machine ".as composi'd of parts which liad before % AUT.- Aiirs, hosr. 15A AHT; WHAT IN; WIIRN PATMNTAni.M.— MMT ANIItl WIIKN I'ATtSNTAIII.H. Imm'Ii iimi'iI, lull tliikl lliM ptih'iit wns tor itri iiii|>rMVciiii'iil iipitliiMl to n |iriirlir!il u>*<<, t'lVn'lt'il liy II I'mnliiiitilioii nC vtii'i- iiim iiDM'lituiiriil powrrH to |inM|iini a ui'W result. iJnii/ v. ./ fj^nuiteil. KindHn V. St'liin/lhill /littd; I Wash., 1'.'.— WAsiiiNuroN, .(.; I'll., JMjo. », Ifiider 55 7 of llin iK'l, i.r JM.IO are ciiiliraecil iiol only |ialeiitstor iiiaehines, inaniiDietiireN, ami (>orn|M)Milioii nt' mat- tor, but iiIho at) invent ion of a new iiii|inivemeiit in an art, as of e.'isiini,' ii'iiii, Ity /^iviii;^ nil an<;ular direetinn to tlio tnlie wliieli (M)ndnet.s thn metal to the iiionid, HO that tlio flo;^ or drop will he thrown into the centre, instead of the siirfiice. Mrd/iiri/h v. /xiiii/Hftind, I Mow., JOl), i!IO.--UAi,i)WiN, .).; Slip. Ct., IHi:i. fi. When art Ih Hpoken of as the hiiI»- jccl (if a patent, it is not an art in the ahslracl, Init it is an art as explained in tlio Hpeciliealion, and illiiKtratocl by n iimchine, or model, or drawinj^s, when (if a cliaraiier so to be. It nieaiiH a useful art or mannfaetiire, whi(rh must ho described with exactness in its mode of operation, :iiid which can bo jirottu^t- oil only in tho mode and to tlu) extent described. Smith v. Doinnhif/, MS. — WooiniuuY, .1.; Mass., iH.'iO. 0. There is no reason of policy which hlioiild ileny protection to an art, while exleiidinn it to the machinery or pro- cesses which tlu! art teaches, ein|>l<)ys, and makes nsidnl. French v. Knyers^ 3IS.— GuiKU, Kane, J.T. ; Ka. Ta., 1851. 1. A process, co nomine, is not the suVect of a patent, under our laws. It IN included iiiidor the general term " iino- I'lil art," and an nrt may re(|nire otii« or Mioi'o proceNses or nwichineH in order |o proijiico a certain result or inannfactiirin (fiirnin;/ v. Hiinln |.» How., 207.— (]i(iKi(, .1.; Hup. ('I., iHri.'i. H, The ap|)licatioii of a ciMtain <-om- binalion iind contpoHitinn of riiletl rol- luniiN in sections to accounts, to hIiow a constant balan(!e thereof, with Ntato- ments of asMctM and liabilities on every pa;^(f of the journal without refereiico to tint ledger, is not an invention of an art, machine, manufacliire, or compoHi- tioii of mailer, williin >J of tho net of Ih:«) ; it is nothiiifr mori! than a nnxlo of presenting the journal entries of a regular business in a tabular form, ainl therefore not patentalile. lUxmi, Ex pnrh\, IMS. (App. (Jas.) — Mousici.r,, J. ; I). 0., 1800. AUTS, LOST. 1. It can hardly be doubtod, if any one discovered an art which liad be I placed upon it, itnd tliu invi'iilor ni'viM" niiulu ji Hfoornl ono, but UMctl II (litrt'i'uiit onu, ami the mfa UmM' liati diMiippi'artMl, it was lu'Ia that i! Iiail jiasHt'il away fioni tlu' nicniory ot' tin- inventor liiniscif, and of those wiio ha 1(>| 4. Wlitn imty maiutaiit aHion ir>9 6. liighl (>/, (U to liineliiimer Jfio 0. Iti'jht of, in nut* «H iii> roilri'HM for iiii uitiiiitltorizuil tlit'iitriful ri|ii( x'litiitioii. Ihid.y 4fl. 0. 'I'lu' only Hfutiili! tliiit iiH'onlri ro- ilri'ss for uiiiiiithori/.*>'l tlu-utricitl roprt'- m'lttiitlonx in tlu- act uf An^iiMt IH, IH5(I ; but I'li^ Hpplit'H only to ciimox in wliii'li (•opyriirlit is «'l!\>«'liiiilly Hi'curod uni>. >ij it IM ASHKiNKK, n. .', M. or PAtrnt. MMMTIt l>rt WHRM IUIUKT mat iMItH tii^ of IH.KI, nil to puttlnK tli« hivrritlori in dtfrirtd from, nml «>\«'r(UiM| itrtiirr oil mile in ii certain tiiui% diu't not up- tint protcctUm off he I'liiixil .St;it«>«, urii| ply to MUrli ii^»i|{nfi>>« anil piiti'rttccH. Tht/mmv. I.nvifHr, 'i IHiitiliJ',, 50, 51. — Nkimov, J.; N. Y., I«47. A. Kilt I'Vi'ii it* Niii'ii (nt«-tl ini|irov«>y havo t'lnlt'iivoriHl to null it to utiy pi-r Non. [hid., r>l. 0. It iVHtN upon tlioHO K(H'kin|{ to tU>- ft'iit tli(> patt'Tit to provo that Hiich pat- outt'OM nc^It'i'ti'd or ri'TiiMi'il to nuII for roanonaMi' pricoM, wfifii applii'aliatent. lie oh the iiitercKt he uc(iu ily ter- tiihintVM at the time limited for it* eoiitiniiamu) hy tlui law which furcated if, liloonur\. Mrijihtnnt, II How., rtJO.—TANKV, Ch. J. ; Sup. Cf., |H52. Ii. Hilt the pnrcliaMer of ihv thing for the pnrpoHe of unimj it in tho onli- nary piirsiiili* of life NfamU on difTcreiit ground, lie cxerciMeN no right crcati'd hy the actK oi Congress, nor docn Im ilerivo title hy virtue of the fiancliise, or e.veluHive privilege granted to tho patentee. Ihid., 540. 12. An assignee of acontrtict, taking furdriihi lite, or with a knowledge of the state of thirigH existing between tho original parties to the contract, is boiinil by the same opiities that existed lie- twecn such partiex. 'ximtmau v. J'urk- /iiti'nt, 18 How., '-'94.— V Lurirt, J.; Hup, Ct., I8r,5. IM. An assignor cannot, after nssirf|,. incnt, impi'ach the title of his assigiico. Wilmii, As/ii(^nee^ v. Simjir, MS. ( App. Cas.)— Di'M.oi', .1. ; I). ("., IHOO. 3. When Patent man inane to. 1. TreviouH to tho act of 1837, 8 0, patents could only issue to the inventor, antlaf\er they were issued, they were as- signable so as to give the as*atent issued, is valiil under ij C of the act of 1837, although it is niado after the rejection of tho assignor's np- Ii tains a share in the monopoly which plication by the Commissioner, aucl ASS!ONKK» n. 4. 150 or l>«Ta!«T. MHMM MAV MAiHTAIN AtrTUW. nl\i'r liH u|i|M «>iily |i:ir- tiiil, tlmiiyli lln« i»:irl »'X«'«'j>ttMl U hiiihII, till' a^xi^'iu'tt liiiM no It'^xitt claini to tin' |i||i'lit. It lillINt lie iHsiicti ill (lie iiiuiK' ot' tho iiivi'iitor, ami Ito liclil Ity him in triiHt lor tho iiHo of t\w iWHij^iu't*, to tlio I'Xtcnt nl* tho ciiiiilics lie huH by virtti*' ot' hid rontraot. Jbiit. 4. When may mnintain Avtiuii, 1. ITiitlcr 5$ 5 ot thf lU't of I70;», an ftSMij^iK't' of a part of a i»atoiil-ri;,'lit cannot niaintain an notitin for a viola- tion of it. l)fltr V. Tnel, Cra., 327. — CiitiAM; Sup. t't., IMIO. 2. Hut if a patfiitcc has >^i)l(l a moie- ty of his invent iuti to another, a joint ju'tion lic'H under Hiioh ^ 5 l»y himself ami Hueli assignee, for a violation of tlic i>atent. Tho aetion is brouj^ht by tlioso who have liie wholi- patt'iit in themselves wliieh distinj^uif^hes it from tiio ease of Ti/I/(/| ft. Whether an AMi^iieo of part of ik patent, eireuiiiHcrlbeil tui to the inleriNt by luciil JitiiitM, can, in IiIn own name, or with the patentee, maintain a Niiit nl law or not, there eaii v\\ni no doubt but that he may support aniiit in eipiity to «iijoiii thirtl per«ons from infringiiu; the patent, and for an account. ()w^' >WW 'niJ\ i iT. '^,, 4> • kS ywy**rrr. M P'^, «i?teir.-: 100 ASSKINEE, C. or TIIADK-UARKB. RIUUTS OF. k *»«, m It ■«■„ patent issiu-d, niuy file a bill in liis own nanu', undcT $< 10 of tlio act of 18:19, ainendi-.ig § 10 of the aci of 1830, against n patentco to w lioni a patent if sued, upon tho interfering ai)plication of his as- signor and Hueli patentee, for the pur- pose of annulling tho pat< nt issued, and having one granted to iiiniself as as- signee. Gfi)/ V. Cornell, 1 Blatchf., 607, 509.— Nelsox, J. ; N. Y., 1849. 11. And such assignment need not be recorded before suit brought ; it will be sufficient if it is recorded at any time be- fore tl'.e issuing of the patent. I/iuL, 5\0. 12. In an action of infringement, founded upon tho non-performance of the conditions of a license, the original patentee and licensee arc properly join- ed as parties plaintitf with the assignee, notwithhianding tlie whole beneficial interest is in tho assignee, inasmuch as he was a party to tho agreement or license, and may be interested in the p, vCnt and interested in upholding it. Woodworth V. Cook, 2 Blatchf., 101.— Kelsox, J.; N. Y., 1850. 13. An assignee under § of tho act of 1837, by an assignment executed before patent issued, even though the patent is issued to the inventor, has the legal title so as to enable him to main- tain an action for an infringement. Gayler r Wilder, 10 How., 494. — Taxky, C'h. J.; Sup. Ct., 1850. 14. But to enable an assignee of a sectional interest in a patent to sue in his own name, under § 14 of the act of 1836, he must have the exclusive right, Oi' entire und unqualified monopoly, vrhich the patentee held in the terri- tory specified, excluding the patentee himself, as veil as others. Ibid., 494. 15. A patentee or his assignee, in as- signing t!ie use of a patent within a particular district, may reserve the right to sue for infringements. But it ho afterward assigns ail his right in such district, tho owner of tho patent may sue. Jiicknell v. Todd, 5 Mc- Lean, 240. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1851. 10. The assignees of a patent, though their title accrues to them by several deeds, may all join with the holders of the title in an action for tho recovery of damages for an infringement of i patent. Stein v. Goddard, 1 3IcAllis 84. — McAllisteu, J. ; Cal., 1850. 5. night of, as to Disclaimer. See DiscLAiMEU. C. 0. Right of, in cases of Iteii>sue, Seo Reissue op Patent, E. 7. night of, in Extcnsiona. See Extension, C. C. Tkade-Marks. Rioiits of. 1. Where a person has purchased of another the secret of preparing an arti- cle, and also the right to use his name, and continued to manufacture and soli such article, under the name of the original manufacturer, whether, under such circumstances, a court of equity would be bound to protect him. Par- fridge v. Menck, IIow. App. Cas., 559, 500.— Wkigiit, J.; K Y., 1848. 2. Is not such a proceeding a decep- tion upon the public, inducing others to believe they are purchasing an article manufactured by the original manufac- turer, when in truth he has no concern in it? 7AiV?., 559, 560. 3. It is no answer that the complain- ant obtained the secret from the origi- nal manufacturer, or that the articlo 1% WW **«*9»4« ••'W'kik. ASSIGNMENT, A. 1C1 14:111 or coPYRiauT and manuhckii't. HEgumiTEB ur; what pabhkh hy. BoUl is ill all rcspcotH o(iual to that oflor- ed l)y the foriiuT proprietor. Ibiil.^ 659. 4. Till' privilogo of tU'iH'iving the pub- lic, even for its own benefit, is not a sub- ject of commerce. Ifiiil., 559. 5. The aeqaiescenee of a manufac- turer in the use or imitation of his trade- mark by another, may be withdrawn ; it is no more than a revocable license. Amoskedf/ Mamif. (Jo.wSpear, 2 Sand., S. C, 015,— DuEij, J. ; Sup. Ct., N. Y., 1849, 0. The owner of goods, which he exposes to sale in market in his own right, is entitled to the exclusive use of any trade-mark devised and applied by him to the goods, to distinguish them as being of a particular manufacture or quality, although he is not himself the manufacturer, and although the name of the real manufacturer is used as a jiart of the trado-mark. Waiton v. Cntwlei/, ;} JJiatchf., 448.— Bkits, J.; N. Y., 1850. 7. The assignee of the whole right in such trade-m.'irk, and of the property in the goods to which it is attached, is entitled to the enjoyment of the ex- clusive right thereto, and may maintain an action in his own name for any wrongful use by others of such trade- mark, to the like extent as the origina- tor thereof. Ibid. 448. ASSIGNMENT. A. 161 C. Op CoPTRiailT ANT) irANUSCRIPT. Of Invextion ou Patent. 1. Wiat may he assiijned, and when; v:Jio may make ; kinds of ... . 1G2 2. jRccordinij of 104 3. What amounts to ; construction and effect of 1G6 Op Patent ou Copyright by Opera- tion OP Law 1C9 11 A. Of Coi'YRioiiT AM) Manusoiupt. 1. An assignment of an interest in n copyright must be in writing to be valid and operative ; but an urirecment to as- sign may be by parol. Gould V. lidnks., 8 Wend., 505. — Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1832. 2. Where the assignment of a copy- right is a precedent performance, the .assignment, which is to be made and tendered, must be in writing. //>/(/., 500. 3. Where A employed IJ to ct)mpile a school book, and iigreed to pay him $500, and IJ conveyed to A the "copy- right," Held, that only the usual copy- right of fourteen years, then existing or taken out, passed under the contract. Pkrpontw, Foicle, 2 Wood. & Min., 42, 43.--WoomJUUY, J.; ]Ma*is., 1840. 4. Such an assigmnent is to be refer- red to what was then in existence, and not to any future contingency. lOid., 43, 45. 5. A usage among booksellers to re- gard the renewed term as passing with the first one does not control the rights of those unacquainted with the usage, or not belonging to the fraternity of booksellers. Ibid., 43. 0. An assignment of a " copyright" should not by construction be extended beyond lo first term, imless it seems to be actually so meant by the author, and to include; any future contingency. Ibid., 44. 7. Otherwise, If the contract of sale or assignment uses language looking beyond the existing copyright, such as referring to all the interest in the mat- ter, or to the manuscript or book itself, or xising some other exj)ression more comprehensive than the Avord " copy- right." Ibid., 45. ^wa W^wtr i . 1 I L ^^i ;ii 1C2 ASSIGXMEXT, B. 1. OP IXVKXI'ION Oil I'ATBNT. WHEN MAY BE MADE; KIXDB Of. rw 7k ['**».„ 8. An assiifiiinout of a copyri^lit, :il- tliough not rc'cordt'd, is still valid as bu- tweeii till' parties, and as to all jJCTSons not claiming undcM* the assignors, Webb V. Powerit, 2 Wood. & ]\Iin., 510.— WooDiiriiY, J.; IVr.'iss., 1847. 9. 'i'lu! right of propt^rty in a manu- script may be transferred or abandoned, the same as any other right of proper- ty. Jiarthtt V. Crittenden, 5 McLean,. 41.— McLeav, J.; Ohio, 1840. 10. An ac(piiescenco in the publica- tion of a manuscript or in the republi- cation of a printed book, authorizes a presmnption of assignment or abandon- ment. Ibid., 41. 1'. But a gift of a copy of a manu- sci'ipt is not a transfer of the right "or an abandomiicnt of it, any more than the gift of a copy of a printed book is a tr.ansfer or abandonment of the exclu- sive right to republish it. Ibid., 41. 12. The statute of 1834, sanctioning assignments of copyrights, prescribes only the instrument by which they may be assigned, and the mode of record- ing, but does not define Avhat interest may be assigned, lloberts v. Myers, 1.3 Mo. Law Ilep., 401. — Spuague, J. ; Mass., 1860. 13. There is no sufficient reason for preventing an author conveying a dis- tinct portion of his rigiit. Divisibility as Avoll as assignability enhances tlie value of his projierty. Ibid., 401. [But see post 15.] 14. In this case the .•\ssignment undor which suit Mas brought Avas of the ex- clusive right of acting and representing a certain drama, within the United States, except as to five cities, for tlie term of one year, Held, by the court, that such an assignment was Aalid under tlie statute. Ibid., 400, 401. 15. The statutes of the United States for tin; protection of authors do not like those for the benetit of inventors, sanction transfers of limited local pro- prietorships of exclusive privileges. Iveene v. W/icatlei/, 9 Amcr. Law Itc". 40. — CAinvArxAOKi}, J.; Pa., IHOO. IC. A writing which is in form a transfer by an author of his excliisivo right for a designated portion of the United Staf("< operates at law only as a nil re licence, and is ineftectual as an as- signment. Ibid., 46. 17. But in eqiiiti/, a limited local or other partial assigmnent, if made for a valuable consideration, is carried into effect whether it would be effectual in law or not. Ibid., 47. 11 . Op Ixvention or Patent. 1. M^hat may he made; by whom; kinds of. 1. A patent-right itself is insusccp- tible of local subdivision. Whittcmore V. Cutter, 1 Gall., 431.— Sxoiiv, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. An assignment of an invention is not void by being executed before the invention is jtatented. It is a good transfer of the right of the i)!itenteo immediately upon his obtaining tlio patent, and he would beestopj)ed losut up any adverse title. Herbert v. Ad- ams, 4 Mas., 15. — SxOKY, J.; Mass., 1825. 3. As a privilege or monopoly, a pat- ent is an entire thing, indivisible, and incapable of ai)portionment. liroo/cs v. Bi/am, 2 Story, 525, 652. — Stoky, J.; Mass., 1843. 4. By §11 ofthe act of 1836, a patentee may assign any part of his invention, and the assignment vests in the assignee the legal right to such part. Boyd v. m put- and ICS V. J-i ASSIGNMENT, B. 1. 103 or INVENTION OK PATKNT. WHEN MAY UK MADE; KIXI)8 OF". Ml' Alpine., 3 IMiLoan, 428.— McLkan, J.; Oliio, 1844. 5. An administrator, in Avboso name a patent has l»ccn renewed, may grant an assignment of an interest in such patent. Brooks v. Jiicknell, 3 McLean, 4H. — MtLKA.v, J. ; Ohio, 1844. (]. An inventor may soil fnturo im- provements as well aa those already made, and a second as well as a first patent for them. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Wood. & Min., 41. — WoonuuuY, J. ; Mass., 1 845. 7. Tlie subject matter of a patent i' not partible, except in respect to terri- torial assigmnents. Suydam v. I><(y, 2 r.latchf., 23.— Nelson, Bktts, JJ. ; X. v., 1840. 8. An assignment of an invention be- fore patent issued, is valid under § of the act of 1 83 7, though made after a rejec- tion by the Commissioner, .and .ifter an appeal to the justices of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. Gay V. Cornell, 1 lilatchf., 509. — Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1849. 9. And an assignment of the whole or any part of 1 interest in a patent, ■will be valid, although it is it the time the subject of litigation. Ibid., 510. 10. The art of Congress (§11, act of 183G), provi s but three khids of assignment: 1st, is to the whole inter- est; 2d, as to an lulivided part, .and 3d, an exclusive right in any district. Blancluml'v. EWruhje, 1 Wall, Jr., 339. — GiuKK, J.; Pa., 1849. 11. This statute renders the monopo- ly capable of subdivision as to locality, and in no other way. The patentee cannot carve out his monopoly, which is a unify, into a hundred or moro, all acting in the same place, and liable to come into conflict. Ibid., 340. 12. An interest in a u,rant of a future! term of a i)atent, not yet in csae, is not the Hubjet^t of assignment or grant at common law, or within the meaning of !^ 11 of the act of 1830, and the right for such interest rests only in contract. dbMrn V. Cook,'l Blatchf., 149.— Nel- sox, J.; N. Y., 1850. 13. An invention may as well be sold before as after the appfuMtion for a pat« ent. Itathbonew Orr, 5 ]\IcLean, 132. —McLean, J.; Mich., 1850. 14. The provision of the law rcS^ Mi^ .'^W^:~L \!f^i 4 104 ASSIGNMENT, K 2. or INVENTION Oil PATENT. UKO()IU)IN(» OF. c'liivcyt'd ft)r !i valuable consiileratioii. Jilooiner v. McQuewan, 17 How., 553. — Tamcy, Cli. J.; Slip. Ct., 1852. 10. An usMlgninuiit, tlioiigh uiituuo- dctit to the patent, is a valid legal as- signment of the invention afterward piitented in the name of the inventor. Jlich V. Lippincutt^ 20 Jour. Fr. Inst. (3d Ser.) 13.— GuiEK, J.; Pa., 1853. 20. One tenant in common has as good right to make, use, and sell to third persons to use the thing patented, as the other tenant in common has. Ibid. Chim V. Breioer, 2 Curt., 524. — CuitTis, J. ; Mass., 1855. 21. A paper purporting to bo an as- slgmiient of an expired patent is void as an .'issignmont. Belly. 3IcCullou(jh, MS. — Lkavht, J.; Ohio, 1858. 22. It is not to be presumed that a grantor intends to grant more than he has a right to grant, or that a grantee intends to receive by way of grant that to which he has a full right without a grant. Day v. Gary, MS. — Ixgkusoll, J.; N. Y., 1859. 23. A patent gives the patentee no })OAver to parcel out his one monopoly into .a thousand sub-monopolies. lie may liold a close monopoly of his right, or he may grant out his entire right. But lie cannot divide his right into parts, and grant to one man the right to use it in its connection with or application to one thing, and to another in connec- tion with a different thing, to such an extent as that purchasers from any of these 2>crsons may not use the fabric jiurchased exactly as they like ; and if they please, in violation of what he has supposed were rights not granted by kim. The Washing Machine Go. v. JSarle, 3 Wall, Jr. — Giukb, J.; Pa, 1861. 24. Goodyear, the patentee of vul- eanizi'd india-rubber, miglit have pre- venti'd any person from using his fal)rio for any puri)ose. Uut if he grants to A the exclusive right to use it to make "wringers" only, and to J» the right to make "tubes" only, A camiot rest rain C, who has bought tubes, from convert- ing them into wringers by any process whatever that he, C, pleases. Neither can Goodyear. Ibid. 2. Recording of. 1. It is the business of the assignee of a patent-right to see that the assign- ment is \nii on record. Jl/orrillx. War- thington, 14 Mass., 303. — Cukiam, J. ; Mass., 1817. 2. An assignnv ^f a patent, thougli not recorded in the office of the secre- tary of state, is still valid, except as against creditors and subsequent pur- chasers. Iluldenx. Gurtis, 2 N. Ilanip., 03.— WoODHtriiY, J.; N. II., 1819. 3. The exclusive right of property in an invention is the creature of statutory law, and must be strictly regulated by its provisions. Higgins v. Strong,)^ Blatchf., 183. — Dewey, J.; Ind., 183G. 4. Under § 4 of the act of 1793, an as- signment is not valid unless it has been recorded in tlie office of the secretary of state of the United States. Ibid.^ 183. 5. And a note given to an assignee, whose assignment had not been so re- corded, is without consideration and void. Ibid., 183. 6. An assignment of a particular in- terest in a patent-right, or a conveyance of a right to use an invention within .i limited territory, is not required to be recorded. /Stevens v. Head, 9 Verm., 177.— Williams, Ch. J.; Vt., 1837. 7. Under § 4 of the act of 1 793, until an assignment is recorded, the assignee assignmp:nt, n. 2. 10s or IXVSNTION OB PATENTS. RKCORDINO OP. was not sul)stituto>cuml»raii('(>, and it ap- ]>t'artMl tliat lu'lore tlie asNijjmiU'iit of 11 was recorded, the same interest liad been nssii,'ned to others, of M'hieh A had aotnal notice, but such assinnmt'nt Avas not recorded until aHer IJ's, J/ily v. Cornell, 1 JJIatchf., 510.— Xki.sox, J. ; N. Y., 184!). 23. The act of Congress requiring assignments to be recorded is merely directory; and except as to intermediate bo7ia Jide purchasers witliout notice, .nny subse<|uent recording of such as- signments is sulHcient to i)ass the title to the assignee. Olcott v. Jlitir/ci/is, 2 Anier. Law Jour,, N. S., 319. — Mili.kk, J.; Wis., 1849. 24. By § 11 of the act of 1830, the assignment or grant of .an exclusive right in a patent must not only be in ■writing, but must bo recorded within three months, to defeat tlie right of a subsequent purchaser without notice and for a v.aluable consideration. Gibson V. Cook, 2 Blatchf., 148.— Nelson, J. ; K. Y., 1850. 2.'). To guard against an outstanding title ofovi-r three months' duration, the purchusi'r need only look to tin? records of tho Patent Ollice. Within that period he must protect himself as best he can, as an unrn'itrded assignment would pre- vail ; but it must be an assignment in writing, that tuny be recorded within the time limited. Ibid., I4H. 20. The chief object of the recpiiring assignments to be recorded is nianifesl- ly the protection of bomt jide purchas- ers, though not speci.aliy ho dectlareil. Ibid., 148. 27. The patent act of 1830, .as to tho recording of assignments, is meri'ly di- rectory for tho protection of boim Jidf. purchasers without notice, and the re- cording is not a prere(|uisite to the valid- ity «>f tho assignment. Littnloi v. liirt, 4 Ind., 508.— Pkukins, J. ; Ind., 1853. 28. To render the assignment of a p.atent valid under § 11 (»f the act of 1830, it is not essential that it should be recorded. ^IcJurnttn v. Jlltv, G Ind., 430. — GooKiNS, J.; Ind., 1855. 29. The act of Congress requiring assigmnenta of p.atents to lie recordcil is merely directory, and designed for the benelit of subse(pient bona Jide ])W- chasers. Jlildreth v. Turner, 17 III., 185. — Catuox, J.; 111., 1K55. 30. It is not essential to the validity of ,an assignment of a p.atent that it sliould be recorded in the I'atent OtKce, iione V. Palmer, 28 Mo. (7 Jones), 539. , J. ; Mo., 1859. 3. Wliat amounts to ; Constniction of. 1. A variance, merely nominal, or not calculated to mislead — between the description of a patent in the specifi- cation, and in an assignment, does not indicate fraud, or jjrevent the right from ^^ H«» ASSIGN m>:nt, li. 3. !•» or INVINTION OR PATBNT. 'fUAT I(t; OOXITRUOTIO.V Ol'. piiHsiii;,'. C((tie V. Mony, I N. I lump., ;tl». — WooDiiiruY, J.; N. II., 181H. li. MiTo cinMiiustunlial tliirfri'iuu's lii'- tweoii till! •Icscriptidii in llic putuiit and tliiit ('oiitained in uii usHi^iiiiiitiit, will not iTniKir llio assignment invalid. JInhlr.a V. CurtiH, 2 N. I lamp., UH.— WouimuKY, J.; N. II., iHli). ;j. 'I'liu (K'od of assii^nmi-nt conveyed "a new and nsefnl improvement called athrenhiiKj nuiclnne,^'' when the patent was for an '■'■ iiii/irovitni/it in the tliresli- iiiLj machine." The assij^nment alsoj^ave liu'dat'! of the jtatent and the patentee. Jlelil, that the misnomer of the inven- tion in the assii^nment did not render it voitl, iis tlu) deed fnriiishcd siiflicieiit means to correct the mistake, and itlen- tify tho thin}? conveyed. Jlannon v. Jiii-d, 2-2 Wend., 116.— Bronsox, J.; N. Y., 1H:(D. 4. I>ut if otherwise, the deed was not a nullity — it might bo reformed in equity. Ibid.., 115. 5. An assignment may l)c exclusive, though limited to a certain numh«'r of machines. Washburn v. (rouhl, 3 Story, 131, 107.— Stouy, J.; Mass., 1844. 0. The term exclusive, in § 11 of tho act of 1830, comprehends not only an exclusive right to a whole patent, bnt an exclusive right to the patent in a par- ticular section of country. Ibid., 131. 1. In interpreting an assignment, we must look to all the provisions of the instrument, and give such effect to it as its obvious objects and designs require, without uicely weighing the pre- cise force of single words. Ibid., 102. 8. The Avords "license and emjmw- cr," need not import any thing difl'erent from "grant." In their broad and g(;neral sense they are used indiscrim- iuately. A mere "license," strictly speaking, passes no interest, but oidy makes an action lawful, which, without it wouhl have l)e(K»rRUCTtUN Of. m Pi mm •Uii ■Wri 15. WluTc !i piitt'iitt'c pr.'uiti'd to V. i\u' i'X('lii>«ivt' rii;lit to foiiMtiuct uiid UHt« atiil Vi'inl williiii a coitiiiii iKrritory, ten jtlfDiiii;/, /o////M«;///y, and yroovimj \\\\\- chiiit'H, mid tlio ^raiit ili>clikn>(l tliiit V. was to oiijoy ail fxt-liisivc umo of tin* puti'Ht within Haid territory, liinited to Hnid ten iiiachiiK's ; and atlerward the patt'iitfi! ^^raiitcd to K. tlio ('vt•lIl^ivo ri^ilil midt r llic palfiit iij,'iiiiiiiit of ail intcri'st in a patent, lull ri'sorviiiLj to tlic grantor the whole and sole power of disposal, eoii- vcys no le_i;al title, Imt the assij^nee is only a centiil que tnixt, to tho extent of his interest, in the profits. Goixfi/cir v. Dill/, ]\[S. — Gkiek, Dkkkksov, J.T. ; X. J., 1.s5l>. • 17. An ai^reeinont made by the own- er of a patent, securing to the grantee the exclusive right to make, use, and sell to others to be used, the machine patented within a certain territory, but reserving to the grantor the right to sell within such territory, machines of his own manufacture, does not operate as an assignment or transfer to the grantee of the right and title secured by the patent within such territory. It is an agreement in the nature of a license to niiinufacturc and sell, but more than a mere technical license. It is a fixed contract right, vested in tlie gnxn- tee, and assignable by him. JR/'tfs v. t/ameson, 15 Barb., S. C, 315. — Jonx- .so.v, J. ; X. Y., 1853. 18. Where an agreement was entered into between a patentee a:id another person, that in case of an extension of the patent such person should have ami Ih! entitled to an eijiiul undivided oii(>. fourth part of the rights and benelits that should be secured thereby, on pay- ing a proportional part of the expenses of obtaining such i'Xteiision ; fjiori/ whether the terms of 8ueh an agrei'- ment are not words of grant and con- veyance, and whet her such an agreement would not be a suHicieiit ;issigninent of the interest, if the condition was per- formed. I'ittH V. J/nll, a r.ljitchf., 201. — IIam,, J.; X. Y., 1H54. 10. Hut the ofVer to pay the ])ropor- tional part of such expenses will not vest in such person the interest in such ext«'iision, although it may entitle him to iiriiig his action and recover damages for the non-performance of ''le agrco- iiieiit. l/nif. L'Or). 20. If a bill of sale of a patent con- tains no warranty, but a simple transfer of title, the veiidi'c cannot set up a parol warranty, for it is to be presumed that the writing contains the entire con- tract. ,/(>/////(! v. Collini^, 21 3Io., 341. — ScoiT, J. ; 3Io., 1H55. 21. Where an assigniiient is in writing, the j>resuiiii)tion is that the writing con- tains the whole contract. All oral ne- gotiations or stii>ulatioiis between tlic parties which jin-ceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument, are to be regarded as merged in it. Jfi'Clure V. 'I'Jfri'i/, 8 Ind., 83. — Davison, J. ; Ind., 1850. 22. Where a warranty is not included in the written contract, it cannot he j)roved by parol evidence, unless it is also alleged that it was false or fraudu- lent, and that thereby the vendee was deceived ; and then parol proof is only evidence of such representation. Ibid., oo ki » n* ASSUiNMENT, C. lOi) or PATRNT Oil C'OPVHinilT, HY OPERATION OP LAW. 2.1. An Mfifoi'iiu'iit nimlo butwonn a |i:tt(Mitci! aiitl li tliinl piTHcm an tniHtcc, that llit> latter nIiouIiI IioIiI tlit> patent, aiiil liav»! tlm ctnilrul tlu'n-of lor tlu' Ik'Iii lit «>r tlioMo will) liail a ri;;lit to uxv thu sami', uiulor fontrairtH with the pat- ('iit(H>, traiiNturK tlui iMitiru intoroHt and (iwni'rsliip, icijal and uquital)!*', of llic iiati'iilut! ni \\w patent, to nucIi tnistee, tor thu iKMH'Ilt of tlioso int'ri'sti'd. JI,irfit/iorn v. Any, 10 How., 221.— Nki.son, J.; Sup. Ct., 1h:)U. 'J4. The conveyanci! of a patent by A. with the written eonsent of U., in wlioin the title then was, \n e(|ually ('tVectivo with n conveyance din-etly tVoni \i. Shrnnan v. (Jlnnti]). Troiis. <'ii., ni Verm., 175.— RicnriKM), J.; Vt., iHr)8. 25. A paper purporting to bo an ns- m^iiineiit of an expired patent is void ns !in assignment. JJill v. Mi'Ciillouijh, MS,— Lkaviit, J. ; Ohio, 1H5H. 20. An assignment of a patent dc- perihed the improvement as "a patent for an im|)rovement in burning lime, for which le|,ters j»atent were granted, May 0, 1851." JFild, that it was asuHieient description of the thing Hold, and that tlie deed need not contain the specilica- lions of the ])atent. If the purcliaser wanted a copy of the sjiecitications, he could get them. JFill v. 7yiuernier, 13 Iiid., 'Mil, Sry2. — Pkukins, J.; Ind., 1859. 27. Where a patentee granted to an- other the exclusive right to make and Holl his patented Invention, within a cer- tain territory, he to ]iay a certain sum for each machine so made and sold, but the i)Utenteo reserved the riglit of sending machines of his own ma?iufac- ture into such territory, Held, that such contract was not an assignment of the patentee's interest in the patent in such territory, but a more grant or licenso to nn«kii an<«• .try V. W/iitelri/, AIS. — Lkaviit, J.;* Ohio, iHdl. C. Op I'atknt on Copyuioiit, bt Oi'KUATioN OF Law. 1. The recovery of a verdict by iho plaintilV, in an action fur the infringo- ment of a patent, does not pass any legal right to the defendant to use the machine made by him. Kvery fu- tiH'e use will be an infringement of the plaintiirs patent. W/iiffrmorc V. Cutter, 1 Gall., 484. — Stouv, J. ; Mass., I8i;}. 2. The levy and 8alo, under an oxc- cution, of the nvtterkiU of a patented machine does not convey to the jnir- (^haser any right to use the machine in the manner pointed out in the patent. Sdichi v. Guild, 1 Gall., 487. — SioitY, J.; Mass., IHIU. n. The capture from an enemy of a patented machine does not operate as an assignment of a right to use such machine. LdinUi Cxfii^, 5 Opin., 725. — WiitT, Atty. Gen., IHJO. 4. L., an American citizen, obtained .1 psitent in the United States for an inven- tion for producing fresh water from salt. He afterward went to Kngland, and took otit a patent there, and one of his machiiu's was put on board the frigate IJoxer, which was captured by an Ameri- can brig in the war of 1812, Held, that the United States by such capture ac- quired no right to use the invention, without the consent of the inventor. Ibid. -— -. 5. Whether a Acrdlct for a plaintiff, and tlie assessment of damages for a violation of his patent, entitles the de- . iij ■ii i Id '''X.riL ■•^vii ^^'"flsnS no ASsmSMKNT. V r^.4 ^^ iHf PArn\t im lOiMYUMtiir, ii> iii>HH4rii»i or t,\m. ti'inliMil (o IIHM till' liliii'liilir Hiilm« iii;lil lo iitc it ; »/»< /'.y. A't/'A I M UN. /'/«■ V, Ml 1 11* I/I r, l;i. - Slnio. .1. ; Ma-s., IMV . il. Siii'li It i' liiw Moiil)! t'iial)l<' any iinxoii in iii'i|iiiit< lliitl I'iglil, li,\ a riMct'il hall", aiji.iiisl ll»«> |iiil iMili')', ami <'iini|M'l liiin In n) II, an (n |)«>iH))iiM ami |ilari's, u lu'ii il iiii'^hl inter- (•!«' » 'Mil liall • I'M Mill ('(., IH,' ) >\illi III-* |M'iiiiatH'iit 111 ItMt'sl , |li(> \t>iv all>'Ui|>i iil'llio |iali>iiit>(< In ••iir ill I'l'mj am li> |nir<'liasi<, any inxio lliaii il can llii« iilaiiiliiV li> M'll, llii' |ialriil lif.lil, lor tlu' w liult' |n'i iotl il lias 111 run. //>i,f., I I. S. liitt wlific a ili'ilaialiiMi jfiu'H li"' ' Uiil il may ln> icai In'ij t>y a lii'il In lli<< pay im nl of til- i*i\U; tiiiviMi>, iir li'vv ••I' «'»i'<'iilloii, aN>7/( ». ('niHf>,.' Wniiil A Mifi,, ."i;in Wdomiii'Im , .1. ; Miih^i., ImiV, I'J. 'I'Ih' |>in|irily »n|HiMc| li\ iji,. Male of an rii'^iaM I pliili' nr Hli'irnlv.iii plait's, mill ilii< rup 'iKlit nl' II map, tir liiMik ni'imii'dI lit llii' aiitlinr niMJir i||(< iit'lH III' ('niiKnss, an< all>"frciln'r ili(*\>r. rill ami iiiili'pi'mlriil nl' t a< Il mini , jntl liaVi' IMMIi'i t's-i;|l y I'iMim hull. '^hji/ii'liH V. i\iifi/, It llmv., ftito. Ni^i.NitN, J l.'l. Till' iiii >i pnroul I'i^lit I'lipyii^hi, xi'iin'i'il liy fill' slaliili' In I In' iiiIImh', lii'iiif.; iiil.in^ilili' ami Hit iii'i'il iiiiil. is Mnl tilt' Niiliji'i't nl' Mt'i/.ni't< m ^alo liy I'M'illlinii al Irani al I'nnillinll I l\v. Jllli'iuaitl lilt' p.tii \ Mii'H I'nr ii iisit iliir in^ II HtiliM'tpu'iil pcrinil, il si't>niN tfial u vt'iilii'l ami jiitlirniiiil in llif ruruu'r I'aM' WKiilil m»l ln' a li'jj;al liar lo a lo I'DVi'iv ill ilu'sri'iiml at'linii. 'I'lii' pirary IN iKil tli(> Kiiiiit% nor IH till' ^'lavanit'ii ilio bUllH', \). A //>/./., II. n .'iiillior Jio lias olitaiiit'il 11 ropyiii;lil iimlt'i- llio atl ol" Coiiixn'SH rami't In- tli'pii\ cil, aj;;ainsl his will, ami ill la\or nt' his cifililors, tif any of thi' ri;;lits soiMirod to him l>y siu'li ai'ts; auil possiMy ihi'y I'aiiiinl, ai^jiiu I his will, Moi/.i' ami Sill thf hooks iht'insi'ivi's, tlu* i'M'lusivo rii;lil of vi'iitlinti; wliich is vostoil in liiin, t\h>/>(i' v. (>niui, i ]J. 3lou. AOU.— Maksiim I., ,1.; Ky., lS4t. ill!' tlihls of llii' author. //»/«/,, ,i 1. II II m,i\ , o\\ ' \ I' I. tlnill It wlii'llnr a lianshr l>y a kmK' ninh r a ilci'l'i'i' nl' I'nilll, Wniiltl pa till' li||t> si> as In prnli'i'l till' pinrhasiT, iinli nh Ity a cnini'y anro in I'oiilorniily with till' i-fipiircnit'nlH of I In stalnh'. //>iif., .■>;i-'. lt>. Tlic sail' of a coppiT-philc III" a map, on an r\rrillioii a'^aiiml llii' nwiiii- of ihi' t'opy liiihl, iliH'M iiol I'.'irry wiili it or pass to ihi' puit hasi-r ihr rii;hl tn print ami piihlish lhi> map ini^iaMtl upon il. //'/./., !>:V2. 111. It m;iy well ho ilonhli'tl wju'llur pati'iils ami ropyriijlils, lichl mitli'i- tlif laws of till' I'nili'il States are siihji'it to sei/.nre ami sale on execution; siicli 1(>. Hill this protection iloes III >l ex- j incorporeal ri;^hls ilo iiol exist in any tend to tho proceeils of the salo of his j pari ieiilar slate or ilisliici, hut arc ci>- exleiisive with the rnilcii States. iSd'- l't>llt\. (i/(ti/(h'll;/, 17 How., f'l. — CuK- TIH, .1. ; Slip, ft., I.H.'il. eopyriijht, wliclher existinij; in Ins own hands, or licltl hy another lor his use. U. A patented machino, and the T\ le mere ownorship ot a eopppr- riyht of Use atlachetl to il, may pass by 1 plaU' of a map, hy the owner of il 10 AirAi'llMKNlS IN I'AIKM' ('Ahl... A 111 ^•^w^ •*•*•»» uKMUBNri liNT iir mnn ut. i'0|iyri^li() <|iM iiii'Mr|iMi'ftil ri^lil hiiIimImIh wliMlly iiii|i>|M IVoin lliK itliili-, iiinl iliiKM riot j.ikHM uilli il liy u pliil o <>r «Ml, wli > lin|»|»itiMM| In Imi III SvW Voik, //(A/, lliii» th*^ lii'lil inultr (III- ml. nl' i'mimfHs; liiit ' i'itr|iiiriiliMit w.%n t\<>\ uii iiilmliiliiiil ..f" N« of tint |iiiniJ., h;i;», 4. A |I|«»<-|'HH (»r ltlltl*-||||||-||l, wfH'llu'P ilil-iM-t or Inifii^ii, iiy wliidi tliti |>rn|i ••riy nl' Ik )ii-r<-iiiliint \h n\U%i')nt III! ihliiil)i>!iiil, I'l', lunl iiol. CuiiimI illiiti I III! liiNlrirl. S>iifillri- V. Itudtiitn% mill' ))| Miii'li jM. Ill III! iirliuii I'lir iIhi iiiri'iii;Miitiii (if It piiNMil, il' llin jury ui|ii|il iih llii> IIII'llHllI'd It I il mil ii'i's Ml IMirit i> r III Kiinil I't'i', provnl in llii< r.iHr, hihIi M*i'ili<'t will i)|M lillo of llii' piili'iil, In llic I'vti'iit of ilM iiNi< liy till' ill ri'iiiliiiil i'! lii'lMiiiiN fiiii |irii|M>i'ly \w iiKfil only in «-hni>h in HJiirh NiK'li iMTHiilis :in< :ini<'ii;ilito In |M'ii('I'Ss /;/ fit ruiiniiin, .iinl in surli casr hIhh, Hiirli an altacliincnl laniinl. hit issiii'il i'x»'t'|>t iH |iiii'l III", or toj^i'ilier with ni'iHH'MH lo lin scrvt'il ii|iiiii lii'^ |irrHiiil. /},!!/ \. Xiwxrk I. Ii. <■»., I nialrlii:, ij;iO, (i.'ii. -Nia.soN, .1.; N. V., Ih.mi. 'J. Till' allirlinH'iit of ill*! |irojicrly of a foi'»'iu;n ri>r|ioralion will iiol confer jiiriHilirtioii ii|iiin llic (ViriMiit Ooiirt iih anaiiiHt Midi coriMiralioii. /A///., o:i;i. !). Wlicrc a rorpuralirn was (iii'alcil 1)y llio laws of Now .lorncy, ami liail ils jiinc.r t)f businosH in that Htato, but niHo liail a Htoro in N«'W A^irk, wliort) ItH L'< >0( Iswcrc ; "lil'intl aMiit was conitiir lie \\ 2 «!iirt. I'r It IIH, .1.; Ml I Mr. I. .%. I'loi'iiHM of allarlinii'iil, .■l^!lin>«^ lln* |Mo|MM'ly of H lion ri'siilciii, i|i>fiiii|ant i-aniiot iNHiiii from ii Oirniit Oourt, ox< iM'|il iiM part of, or loirir mIiIi |iro)!(m« to Ik' Korviil on bin iiirMim ; ami no jiiil^iiMnl < in \»i rrnilrri-i| a^jaiiiMt a non-rcNiili'iit ilnfiiMl.int wlio hitM not bc'i'ti porHi'iiiiily Hrrvml wiili pronoHH, nnli'ss lif I as cnti-ri'ii an appfariuico. /f>U, 7. 0. Till- altai'liincnt of ili, troiii riy of II tiitii-ri'Hiilfitt (lrfi>ii/in,ir,l, '_'(> How., 215, 210.— Ca- TitoN, ,1. ; Slip. (X., IH57. II. To KNFOUCK OllKDlKNCK TO I'ltO- < KHH, 4l;C. I. Wliero a plaint iir in an injunction suit cmleavored to entrap tin; ilefi;nl:iii itiir woiilil not, either in coii>ciem;o eJ !i gainst it in Nuw York by attach- 1 or law, justify an alliicliincnt, anil tlmt 4T^^\ '>« 3ii S^. ''wa >w. Kji a* 172 AITAC II.MKNTH IN I'ATKNT CAAKH, K roR viiii.ArioN or iNjrxt'TiON. tli«> plnintiff mIkhiM Ihi flinr^til wiili tlu< <-i»«H of (III- ii|i|ilii-atiiiii. S/mrkuunt v. Jii)fjin», 'i Mlatchr., MO, Ml.— Hicrrn, J. ; N. v., IHH». '-*. Wlirrt' :iti iiijiiiiclioti wiw Uniii'iI it^iiiiiHt .'( (Ifl'ciiiliiiit, i'«*M(riiitiin;{ liiiii t'l'Diii iiNiiit(iiilaiit IcaMi'il ilio iiiacliiiM' to nllicrH, \\\u\ colitilllK')! to ll'4f, ImiI it liats('<.Hii)ii of HiK'li tlcii'ihlant Nitu'tt lit* WW* tU', ami llii' writofiii- jiiiictioii iHHiu'il tliorcoii wan not tc«ti'* of «»ii(' Vt'ar af;«r tin? day of its lest, //(/»/, tliat a disolicdii'iu-o of tho writ would not 1)1' piinishalilo hy attarhnu'iit. Mr- Criiirk V. ,/iioim; .'» lilatrlil'., 487. — T/.TTs, J.; \. v., IH.-,(!. 4. Ill order to warrant an attiU'hint'iit for II bivai'h of an injunction tlu? party to !»«' proci't'dcd aj^ainst must ho ajcirty to tlu' suit, and have hml iiotinc of the a)i|ilifati(iii for the iiijututioii. ^^icklan V. Jiur>li)i, M or 4 Ulatchf. — IIai.i., ,\.\ N. Y., 1857. 6. On a motion for an .attachiiicnt for n violation of an injinu'tioii the olijcc- tion cannot ho taken, that tho injunction is broader than tho order authoriziii;.? it; if the injunotion served is too broad, the defendants, when served with it, should iiiimedi.'itely take means to set it aside for that reason, [hid. 0. An attachment for a violation of an injunction may issue ajjainst tho a;;ont and acting officer of tho defend- ant, a foreii^n <'oi'|ioraiioii, and lit> in not eveiii|ited llieiefroni «in (he ((round lliitt lit) U a mere Nerviuit o( the (iefeudant. I. Where lie violation of the iiijiiiir- lioii was the iimc of the tiling |>ateiite(l oil n Hteaiiil' tat, //>/>/, that the ell^ilM>er waM properly made a party to the pro> ceediii;^, and that an atlaehtnotit would i.xsiu' iij^aiiisl him. Ihitl, H, To warrant an attachment for n violation <»f an injunction, the werviee of the writs should not he lei) in dnuht. Where the plaintilf^aM' evideiiee of tho Hcrvice of the writs, but the parly pro. eeeded against sworo positively that he had never been served with any Hiich writs, but only with a <'opy of the order of the court ^rantiii);; an iniuiietiini, Ifilif, that there wax mo much uncer- tainty as to service, that the writ et' attachment should not be ^'ranted, \l'hij>ji/f V, J/iitchinHoii, \ I'lLitrlit". — Nki,. HON, J.; N. Y., IH.',8. t). Where the use complained of waH nmler an aj^rt'onu'iit with the p.att'iitee, made snbsecpient to the allowam t' \\n' injunction, an attachment tshoukl not issiio. Iftid. 10. An attachment as for a <'onleiii|if, for disobeyinj; an "ijunction, issued after verdict, to restr,. , a defeiidanl from in- friiiL^'injj: the plaintiir's patent, will not be p'anted, imh'ss the allej^ed violation is a use of th.at actually patented to the jilaintifV, or its evident ccpiivaient; the injunction issued can only ho as broad as the patent. Pop}h:nliiin»en v. N. Y. G. P. Comb Co., MS.— iN.iEU- soi.i,, J.; X. Y., iS'iH. II. Where, therefore, the plaiiititl"s patent was for tho use of thifoll cr its equivalent, in the vulcanization of iiuli.i- rubber and other gnms, and an injunc- tion issued aj^ainst the defendants to tip I'll \rmm m oamm or. ATTACIIMMNT, C— ArTIIni:. 1«ll!«tr:iiii llnlr iiiiTrltiKiti^ nih'Ii imlfiif, ittiil tlii'y .«rt»»rwiit'>'l ii«t't| $hiil» n/hniMii mill fill ill It Miiiiuliii' wiiy to lliut. in wliicli (in/oit WiiM ty«<*\tlili-, (iiiilil not l)i> niMxiilfrcil an (•qiiivairnt fur tiiit'oil, nn<\ tliiil tint attitrlinicnl iiiiiMt l)tt iU>iii)'iii<{ an iiijiinction, in by tCHtiniony liikt'ii orally lu'loro n niiiHtor. Park- hiii-Kf \. /\i)innittn, '2 IMatcht',, 77. — llKViH, .1.; N. v., 1H»H. ii. A plaintilV, ill nioviii); for anatt.'irh- iiiciit ii;;aiiist a tIt>ttMiilaiit in hik-Ii a casi', iiiiist Htati>, ill tilt' pniolk on wliicli tlic npplii'atioii in riiiuiil, tlut Hpc<*ili(; acts of oiiiinHion or cuiainiHsiun on tlio part of tlic ilct'cnilaiit wliicit vonHtitiito the alli'^cil coiiliMiipt. /"/>/(/., 77. ;!. WliiTi', ill Hiich a prococilinj;, (he ilifi'iiilant is unKiictl to answer iiiter- rDjjiitorieM to bo Hkul, hucIi intorroj^alo- rics must ho limited to the partin* tilled to t'o.Hts nn the demurnrn — but the iiiifor('i>nit>iit of Htu'h ro«tH will bo Httiyi'd until the mm it rs nt Immiu* imi tiny inleri'ogatorieH aimwered Hhull bo din- pusi'd of. Ibid., 7»<. 0. Oti a inoiioii for an nitaehinent, altldavits that the pateiilett is not tho lii'Mt and ori|{in.'il inventor of thu tUUm patented, are not admissible, aw that ipiesiion, so far as the injunction is con- cerned, Im Mettled when the writ waH ^rulltcll. W/ii/i/tlf V. Ifii/i fiihMoii, i lilatchf. — Nn.uox, J. ; N. V., IH.-)H. AUTHOR. Sec also riiAUTs, S:c,.\ CorviuoiiT, C 1. If a musical composition is bor- rowed from a former one, or is iiwulo up of ditlcreiit parts copied from «)lder compositions without miiterial <'lian^u, and put togitlier into one tune, with only slight alterations or additions, tho person so combining is not an author within the meaning of thu statute. lind V. (hirx.Hi, H Law Hep., O. S., 411. — Tanky, C'h. J.; Md., lH4r,. 2. It is t'or the jury to decide upon tho whole evidence whether a plaint ill" is or is not the author of the thing eopy- righted by him. Ibid., 411. 3. A eojiy right is jtrinin facie evi- dence that the person taking it is tho author, and tho burden of proof is on tho defendant to show tho contrary. Ibid., 412. 4. To constitute ono an author, ho must by his own intellectual labor ap- plied to the materials of his composi- ^a^k iS«^.> '^fsl INririg ^ ■ i'^ ,^ •" *'v*jt^ ul. ^"MiS ^^ ^WWW> ■fawWi muSmh y^M 174 |!|M. IN i;(,>ri'IV. IUM,S OF K\('I.I"I'|(>\S. WItIS I- Aihl'MllNS SMIII'M) IIM I'MxI.S; \\\{ \'V 1 1 1 I'UMMN. 'fc/^ *- tioii, |iri>(lii('«> ;iii III nmijcmiiil or r«>iii|ii liilioii new ill ilMoir. Afwiff v. /•}/• i-iff, '2 nialrlif., JiJ. - Hkits, .1.; N. V., ISKI. Ti. Ill' iniiy iMiiii|iil(' or !in;iiii:;i' a new |)|i'(liii'(iiin iVoiii mali'iials lid'oii' known, or olitaincil liv ollicrs I'or him, Inil can tiol a|i|tio|irial«> l)y «'o|>yrit;lit lliosc malt'iiaU in (In- stale in wliicli (lii'v arc I'miiisluMl. //'/(/., III. '\. All aiiflior may •>»' naid In 1«> tlit> crritor or iiivi'iitor, IxMli of (lio iIirasi>, /iftfiiri/ f>ri>f»'iit(>i; Kiiiie v. \V/u,ttl,i/. <.t Aincr. Law Kog., 01. — I' \i>\\ \i 1 n>ii{, .1. ; i'a.. ISOi). S. An itutlior wiio lia«i olitainod !> copyiiulil iiMilcr tin' statute, cannot bo (icpiixcd ai^ainst iiis will, ar.d in t'avor I'l" his crcditiM's, o{' any ol' the rii^hls set'urod to him ; i)ossil)|y they eaiuiot, a'^ainsl his will, sci/e and sell the books tliemselves, the exclusive rii;ht orvond- im; whii'h is vosteil in him. (\u)fH'r v. (iiDiii, i l>. Mon., ."JSUK — Maksu Ai I., J.; Ky., \'S\\. !>. 'rheincor)v>re;\l rii;-ht — eo]>yrii;'lit — beiiij; intaiitiilile and secured by i;raiit, IS not the sul>iect ot' sei/nre and sale on execution; but it may be reached by erevlitor's bill, and be applied to the debts ot" the author. Sf(/>/uiis v. (\t(/i/, 14 IIow.j iJiU.— Nklson', J.; Sup. Ct., 10. It luay well be doubted whether jiatents and e person who employe! him. />,< W'iff V. /tri>,>/i.i, IMS.— Nki.son, .1.; \. v.. IS(i|. \2. Where the incidents and even!s ot' ;i person's life were riiriiished liy siich peiNon to. 'mother, who prepared them I'or publication, and the i-opvriolit was taken out in the name of the per- son so t'liriiishiii!;- such facts, /AA/, that he was not tlu' author, and that a partv I'laimiiii; as his assiixiiee could not main tain an :ictiou I'or iul'rini^ement. //>/ILLS OF KXCKrTlOXS, IX PAT^ ENT C ASES. 1. The practice of spreaflini:^ in ex- (e»so the juilire's ehartxo upon the roo- iis, which miiiht nectl (pi.alilication, if tlu'V were the direct jtoint in judgineut, are (o be u HcnHO. Sioitv, .1 'J. Wh CoinpeL.'ii dciue, it Coiirl, .nil is an ex pi /'//;)<)<•/• Sroitv, .1. :i. Wh senled on tlie applic WW to lh< hill of e\c evidence i 4. Kxce clijirne to ciiarije at liy the con (ir n. li. ,1.; Sup. ( r.. Whei tlie jury ;ii court, tlu'\ fused. Vv'i 7.— i'.KTIS, (i. KXCC] llie court t (|ucsted, in slructions j 7. iOxec] jiidLjc, not. taken afto have been court, wlie have been 8. A bill the act of cause to tli iinioiint in sum of '^2,1 court shall not be alloi lalo to con; iiAm_. :c- iit. to .1 IS. .'V re IIIM.S OF KXC'KITIONS. m WIIKN I'iXCUI'iliiNH HIIO('M) III TAKKN; nilAT Til (llMAiy. |f» lie »iiiilt'i'Hl(.(i(l si'iiwo. /'j'lunisw /•Jii is Inki'ii t(» tin- ,i>iii|«'t'tii('y or HiiHici«MK'y ni' ilu« cvi (liiuf, \l in iml |ir(i|ifily Ix'lort^ the Ciiiirl, .iimI |Ii(> iMiltiii!^ it. on tlic rci'Ditl is ;in »><|it'nsivc and iiinicci'ssiiry Ijiirdcn. r, nnor/c v. Dintoiftu; '2 I'ot., 14, 15. — Siouv, .1.; Slip. ('!., IH'2(>. ;t. WliciH" 1lll•(^ll!u•;^|'o^ ilic (•(»iirt prc- s('Ii((mI only a i^ciMMiil |>rinci|ilco|'la\v, 'riil the a|»|iiit':ition of (lie cviili'iifc (o it, was lr|1 lo the jnry, it. is not, in-ci'SMiiry in u trill of (>\iif., 15. 4, l to tlu; ciiiirL;*' !il Ii'iiL^tli, Init to till' piiintH nili'd liy tilt' ronil. Sfitti/i.to)! \. WVnf ('hrs- /«r A'. A'. Co., i How., 40l.-Mihi:A.\, .1.; Slip. (U., iHir.. h. U'lu'io prayers for instruct ions to till' jury are not, eoinpiied with l»y the court, they are lo l/e eonsidered as r((- fused. /'Jnic'-Hiiii v. /A'//.'/, - Uialtthf., 7.— I'.icns, .1.; N. V., 1845. (i. Kxeeplions lie to the refusalH of tlie court to ujive instructions when re- HUcsted, in like nianner as to the iii- slrMclions actually <^iveii. /hid., 7. 7. Kxceptions to the ch.'iri't! of the judiX*', not takon a,t the trial, cannot he t.'ikcu afti'rward. The point should have hcen lu'onj^ht to the notice of the court, when the mistake, if any, could have hecn corrected. 7A/- iiritv, .F. ; .Mass., 1H4(!. !t. i'oiiils ninsl he made and llie ex- crptioiiH taken in the iiMial w;iy at the trial, in order lo entillc tin parly lo the heiielil of tliem on writ of error. lAtoti: V. Si/.if)>/, I Iilalchf., 544. — Nki.hon, J.; N. Y., iH-.d. 10. Where, !il the trial, th(^ points and exee|itions were taken in the rei|iiiied form to entitle the parly to Ihe licm lit of ihini on a writ of error, hut no hill of excepiioiis was setlled in form, hut llie p.'iper hook w.'is made up under Ihe direction of ihe jndt;e at the trial, in the form of n ^-^'^^>, |o move \'<>\- a new I rial, hut wilhoiit prejudice to ihe rii^lit of the parly to make a hill of excep- tions, J/ifif, that :iii oi'der in the ease, afterward made hy llie jiid;j,e, or an iil- lowance of .i writ of eri ■ :, jj;iving leuvo to make a bill of except ions, was proper. ff>i V. Stone, 2 Paino, 383. — Tnoxirsox, J. ; N. Y., 1R28. 2. The literary property intended to be protected by the act is not be de- termined by the size, form, or shap'^ in which it makes its appearance, but by the subject matter of the work. Ibid., 380, 387. 3. The preliminary steps required by law to secure a copyright cannot be reasonably applied to a work of so eiihemeral a character as that of a ucavs- paper. Ibid., 31/2. 4. It cannot reasonably be pi-esum- ed that Congress intended to include newspapers under the term book. Ibid., 393. 5. A label, used in the sale of any article is not a book within the pro- visions of the statute respecting copy- rights. (Joffien V. Ilrnntnn, 4 MeLean, 517.--M»Lkax, J.; lud, 1849. 0. A book necessarily conveys tho idea of thought or conceptions dollied in language, or in characters written, lirinted or publishei(l, 11. Tlio Coinmissioiun" can jx'rfonn no act iiiion a cavc^at but fillnjjj it, nor in fonsfi|ii('n('(' of it, except to give the c!iv(!ator notice of a conflicting applica- tion when made. I!>id. 12. A caveat is not conclusive evi- dence that an invention is not perfected. Johnson V. Jioot, !I\IS. — Si'KAguk, J. ; Mass., 1858. 13. Tho jturpose of a caveat is to save the discoverer of an invention from the elfe<^t of the rule of law that gives to the hivcntor, who first adajHs his invention to practical use, the right to the grant of a patent ; ami if the Commissioner complies Avith the terms of § 12 of the act of 1830, as to giving the caveator notice of any interfering application, it ia to secure him against the eflfect of the rule, Phelps, Dodge tfc Co., V. Broxcn Bros., 13 IIow. Pr., 8. — Xklsox, J.; N. Y., 1859. 14. But if the Commissioner acci- dfMilally omits to give the caveator the notice required, his rights will not be prejudiced thereby. Ibid. 15. A cavtat will directly protect only one of several distinct patent- able subjects, falling within its general scope, at the election of the party in- venting them. WoodruJ' & Cobb, IMS. ( App. Cas.)— Meruick, J. ; D. C, 18G0. 16. lint connected Avith other circum- stances, it may furnish strong ad/nimc- idar proof in favor of his claim to pri- ority as to another invention in u'.ie same line. And when such other in- vention is verv similar to the first, but small additional proof will be necessary in determining the contemporaneous date of the second invention. Ibid. ] 7. A caveat is not required to ho specific in its terms, nor is it presumed to ciciiioe the whole invent 'on of ilui party, but is fikd iv. t!ie ofii( e rather as a wnrning that the inventor is in tho exercise of due diligence in tho pursuit and j)erfection of his discovery. Col- lins V. White, IMS. (App. Cas.) — Mer. KICK, J. ; D. C, 1860. CHARGE OF JUDGE, IN PATENT ACTIONS. 1. If either party deems any point presented by the evidence to be omitted in the charge, it is competent for such party to rccpiire an opinion of the court upon that point. If he does not it is a waiver of it. The court cannot be pre- sumed to do more, in ordinary cases, than to express its opinion upon tho questions which the parties themselves have raised at the trial. Pennovk v. DUxlorfxie, 2 Pet., 15. — Story, J.; Sup. Ct., 1820. 2. It is no part of the duty of the court to give an instruction as to abstract j)oints, not actually presented by tlie stale of the car.se. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story, 619.— Stoky, J.; Mo., 1843. 3. The court is never boiuid to give an instruction to the jury, even Avhen per- tinent and relevant, precisely in the form and manner in which it is put hy counsel. It is only the duty of the court to give such instructions in point of law, as clearly avisc upon the evi- dence, and are rrop.ir ti.)- ih; •. "sidor- ation of the jury, i.i su; h tc.i ij .'.id in such m.w.'r as sh'.^ ; -mp'^rt \--hh ;he real inert; andjuB!^:e of the ^;aoe,^4ncl '(•fHPil '» *• »% , CITAUTS, MAPS, PKIXTS. 179 EXTENT or COPYUIOUT IN. I'liabletlic jury to j;iv(' !i proper vcrilict in jtoiiit <>t" law. Ihid., &20. 4. The court, tliough m-asonably ro- quosted, i8 not bound to instruct the jiirv on points not arisinj^ in the case, or on abstract or irrelevant propositions, points not raised by the evidence. Alien V. Blimt, 2 Wood. & Min., 143. — WooDHUUY, J.; Mans., 1840. 5. Instructions should always arise out of, .and bo limited to the facts, or the evidence in the cause ; and instruc- tions, which are general, abstnvct, or not springing from, and pertinent to tlio facts of the case, are calculated to mislead the jury, and are therefore im- j.ruper. Gayler v. Wihkr^ 10 How., 505. — Daniel, J. (Dis. Opin.) ; Sup. Ct., 1850. CHARTS, MAPS, PRINTS, &c. 1. Under the act of 1802, the per- son intended and described as the pro- prietor of a copyright in a print is one who shi'II not only invent and design, but who shall engrave, etch, or work the jiriut to which the right is claimed ; or who, /rom his own toorks and inven- tions^ shall cause the print to be de- sij^nedand engraved, etched or worked. IVtnns v. Woodruff, 4 Wash., 51. — Washixgtox, J.; Pa., 1821. 2. In the first case, the inventor and designer is idcntitied with the engraver, or in other words the entire work, or siihjoct of the copyright is executed by the same person. In the latter, the in- vention is designed or embodied by the person in whom the right is vested, :ind the form and completion of the work are executed by another. Ibid., 51. 3. But in neither case can a person claim a copyright for a mere invi'iitioii, tiie work of his imaginatiim locked up iu his own mind, or existing in a form not visible to otliers. Ibid., 51. 4. Neither is ho so entitled, unless he has not only invented, but also de- signed or represented the subject iu some visible form. Ibid., 5 1 . 6. The phrase dcsi>jn, wlu'u used as a term of art, means the giving of a visible form to the conceptions of the mind, or in other words, to the inven- tion, IJnd., 52. 0. Where neither the design nor the general arrangement of a print, nor tlie parts A\!iich composed it, were the in- vention of the plaintiif, but he had em- ployed and paid the artists who had composed and executed it, Held, that he was not entitled to a copyright ini- der the provisions of the act of Con- gress. Ibid., 53. 7. Where a person, at his own ex- pense, ha> caused a survey to b') made of a particular locality, as Nantucket Shoals, which corrected errors in for- mer charts, and made a chart of such survey, Held, that though he could not have a copyright in the shoal itself, nor in the original elements of his charts, that he had a right to the result of his labors and surveys. liliint v. Patten, 2 Paine, 395.— TiiOMi'SOX, J.; N. Y., 1828. 8. Arujthcr party might resort to the original materials of the chart and sur- vey for himself, but he could not av;ill himself, either in whole or in part, o{' the surveys of the plaintiff. Ibid., WH. 9. And though the plaintitf had de- posited one of such charts In tlie Na\y Dei)artm('nt, it did not thereby become a public document, which any one had a right to copy. Ibid., ;59G. 10. The natural objects from which Icliarts are made being, however, op'!! '^i w 180 COLOUAliI.E ALTEUATIOXS. %. J*^* iW '?!! A^ ni IlKABINU OK, IN IlKHrKOT To INVKNTION AND IM . NT. ""ijii."--. 'V^^i to all, n <'()|iyri^ht cannot HuhHi^t in a ' chart, as a v^cnoral Biibject, altlioiijjfh it may in an individual work, and otiiurs may be restrained from copying hucIi work. Ifji'd., 400, 401. 11. IJut a rij^ht in Hncli a subject is violated only when another copies from the chart of liiin who has secured the copyrijfht, and thereby availed himself of his labor and skill. Ibitl, 402. 12. In all such cases, It is a proper question for a jury, wliethor the one is a copy of tlie other or not ; if there ■was some small variance, it would be a proper subject of inquiry, whether the alteration Avas not Juurely colorable. lOid., 402. 13. A subsecjuent compiler has a right to avail himself of all prior pub- lications, the copyright of which is not secured ; and if he con'pilcs his chart from some other publications, it is no in- fringement of another's copyright, al- though it may agree with such prior chart. Idid, 403. 14. A man has a right to a copyright of a map of a state or country which he has surveyed, or caused to be com- piled from existing materials, at his owi. expense, or skill, or labor, or money. Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 781. — Srouy, J.; Mass., 1845. 16. Another may, however, publish another map of the same state or coun- try by using the like means or materi- als, and the like skill, labor, aud expense. But he has no right to publish a map taken substantially and designedly from the map of the other person, without any such exercise of skill, labor, or ex- pense. Ibid, 781. 16. Where, on a bill filed for an al- leged violation of a copyright, and an injunction, the alleged infringement consisted in making use of the complain- ant's map by the defendant ; but the answer denied that the defendant had made any use of such map, and alleged that he had obtain<>- COMniNATfON, A. 181 WHAT 1'ATKNTAUI.K ; CONHTUL'CTtON Or i'ATKNTH FOR. tPt»tion in a machino or a compound, iiH whore tliey are formed on tlu' Humo principle, tlioujjh vuriod in form ; or where tli« ingredients are the wame, but conibinetl in a ditU'rent mode, or there is a Hubstitute of one ingredient having tiio same qnalitien, and producing th«' name result, in an infringement. Allen V. Jfiinter, McLean, 313. — IMcLkan, J.; Ohio, 1856. 0. Mere colorable alterations, Hub- staiitially the same as other inventions, and involving the sanu) principle, aflbrd 11(1 lii'oniid for a j)atent. McConnlck v. Miiiuii/, McLean, 657. — McLeax, J. ; HI., 1H55. 7. If the cliango in a niadiine con- sists merely in the employment of an obvious substitute, the discovery and aiiplicalion of which could not have involved the exercise of the inventive faculty in any considerable degree, tlie change will be treated as merely an unsubstantial, colorable variation, or a double use, and not patentable. JSccr- son &. liicant, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.)— MoKSFi r,, J.; D. C, 1855. COMBINATION. A> What is; what Patbntable; Con- struction OP Patents roB 181 B. WUAT AN InPRINUEMENT Dt, AND WHAT NOT 18G A. What is; what PatextableiCon- STKUCTIOX OF PatEXTS FOB. 1. If to an old machine, Home new combinations be added to produce new effects, the light to a patent is limited to the new combinations. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 480. Stouv, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. If difVerent ofTeets have been pro- duced by the attnic (i/>plictition of ma- chinery in several parts, and a person merely combines them together, or adds a new etVect, ho is not entitled to .i patent for the whole machine. Ibid., 48'2. ;». A machine, or an improvement may be new, and the proper sid)ject of a patent, although the parts of it were before known, and in use. The com- bination, therefore, of old machines to produce a new and useful restilt, is a discovery for which a i)atent may bo granted. Evans v. Eaton, Pet., C. C, 343.— Wahiiin(JT()x, J.; Pa., 1810. 4. A jtatent may bo for a new com- bination of machines to produce cer- tain effects, and this whether the ma- chines, constituting the combination, be new or old. Jiarrett v. Hall, 1 Mas., 474.— Story, .1.; Mass., 1818. 5. If an invcutioii « onsist in a new combination of machinery, or in im- provements npon an old machino, to produce an old effect, the patent should be for the combined machinery, or im- provements on the old machine, and not for a mere mode or device for pro- ducijig such effects detached from the machine. If/id., 476. 6. If a cond)iiiation be not -wholly new, but up to a certain point has exist- ed before, and the patentee claims the whole as new, instead of his own im- provements only, and takes out a pat- ent for tlie wliole machine, his patent is void, for it exceeds his invention. 3Ioody\. Fiske, 2 Mas., 118. — Story, J.; Mass., 1820. 7. The same patent cannot 1-^ for a comhination of different machines, and for distinct improvements in each. /Jit/., 119. 8. If old materials, and old principles ^"'^i^i^ '"J ■■■{,;'■ w** ■si ^■^iprpipp,^' f. ^)*l lH'i COMUINATION, A. ;i .^28 .,y 'Id »U : 'I m WUAT PATKNTAULM ; VUMirrHVCTION OF PATKNTH ItlR. ill iiu'i'liaiiics or utluTwiHO, aro usoil in ii Htal«> of coiiihiiiHtioii, HO UH to |ii'oiliii-(> a iH'>v li'stilt, llio iiiv«'iili>r of ilu- urii- clc so piddiu'ctl is «'ii(itlfil to a|i|il} for, uml iii.iy obtain a valiti pati-iit. I'l nnoi'k V. />l'ili>t/iii; i Wash., Om. — Wahiiin*!- TON, J.; Pa., IH-Tj. 0. A cotuliiiiutioii though Hiiii|ili' and ()l)vioiis, if iii'W, is iu'viTtlu'U'ss jiati'iit- alilo; ami it Ih no oliji'otion, tliat n\> to A cortaiii point, it niakcH uhu of old niH- ••liini'iy. J'Jarlr v. Stiiri/t)\ 4 Mas., 11. — Stoky, .F. ; .Mass., iKiT). 10. A pattMit for a niacliint', <'onsist- iiiuf of an cntiro now cond)ination of all its parts, tliouujli t-acli part has lu'cn usi'd in forn\t'r ni:i iiliku |)rolurti)*(/., 153. ■J I. In ordor lo HU|>|ioi-t a claim tor n (•oiiihiiiiUioii, it inuHt tlitVur inatiM-iali}' ami NiiWstaiitiaily t'nuii t'oriiicr coiiihitia- fioiis. Jlnijii/ V. Henry, M WcHt. Law JiMir., 15 L — NVooitiiL'KY, J.; MasM., 1h45. 22. To (iffi'af Miicli :i flaim, if in not HiitlifiiMil, lo sliow lliat cacli part or eU>- iiiciitot'tluM'(iii)l)iiiatioii liaH itrcti known luid iit*t>il bi'foru, but that nil tlio partH liad been known and iisi'd in «;oniliina- tion. I hit I ^ l"»l. 2U. Il M not ft now invention, il' all the parts of n combination had been applied to a dillcrcnt object before, and llit'V wiMc now oidy applied to a new object. Ihid.y 155. 24. Where a patent is for a now com- bination, there iH no claim to invention except in rei^ard to the oond)ination, and no parts of the inacliine need be proveil to be new. llovcy v. iStecens, 1 \Vood.«fe Min., y02. — WouDliuuv, J. ; Mass., 1840. 25. When a certain particular combi- nation of known mechanical powers or ]iriiici])les prochices a new and useful cjfi'i't in a manufacture, that condona- tion becomes the lawful subject of a patent. Wdrncr v. Go(>(Iye, Cas.)— Ckancu, Ch. J, ; D. C, 1840. 20. In mechanics, inventions consist, not in the discovery of new j)Viiiciples, hilt in new cond)ination of old ones. The principles of mechanics are few, 8iraj)le, .and well understood ; their com- binations arc various and inexhaustible. Any new combin.'ition, which is of sub- stantial advantage in the arts, comes within the policy and protection of the patent law. Tyler v. Dcval, 1 Code Rep., 31.— McCaleb, J. ; La., 1848. 27. A patent for a combination can- not be supported by evidence of nov* city of one of itit parts. Ilnttvn v. Clay' ton, 2 Whart. Dig., 408. — Kanr, J.; Ta., 1H18. 2H. A cond)ination to be patentablo nnist etlect u new rcHult, or an old ro- suit l>y a new mode of action ; there must 1m' novelty eitlur of product or process. Jhid. 20. A cond)itnition, in order lo bo patentable, must bring some new feu* tures into the combination, and prodnco new and beneliciMi results. It" it does that, it is of no matter how slight tho change. Adtnna v. JfJdiodrdti, MS.— Si'UAdi'K J. ; Mass., 1H48. :i(). If there is a ncKVclly in the a})- pli(;ation and in the nnichine, and if it produces new and valuable results, it in patentable, whether oniy the condjina- tion is new, or only an important part ofil. If>iil. 31. If a coud)iinition is nttw, and produces a new and useful result, it is the proper sidiject of a patent. Titthdtn v. At' 7u»y, AlH. — Nki.hon, J.; N. Y., 1840. !J2. Though a mere cond/mation of machinery in the abstract may not bo new, yet if used and .applied in connec- tion with the ])ractical development of a newly discovered principle, producing a new and useful result, the subject is patentable. Ibid. [Hut see j)08t 43, 33. In a patent for a combination, where the novelty of the invention con- sists in the combination, it is altogether immaterial whether the elements form- ing the combination are new or old. liiu'k v. JItnnance, 1 JJIatcId", 404. — Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1840. 34. In order that a new combination m.ay be patentable, the change between •.*/'! ^Niw Uti ""■■ I tk" H lt4 OOMIUNATIOX, A. 4 m ft: t/S, WHAT PATBMTAMI.K , C'UilMTkt'CrlUN Of l-ATHNTN ruft. %^ it mill any provuitiHooinbiiintion iiiiiNt t)i> i«ul)r«t!iiiiiiil, iiiid not furiiiiil ; uiiinI ri>- qulrc! niiuil, iiij,'«'miify, liilxir, tinu«, iiml t'X|)«'nHr, Tlu' n«'W iiitieli' nuist lu' flil- furuiit t'roin tliu oiiu <>n which it in an iin|ti-o\ iincnt, not only in uh imih hiiniral contriv:iMc<' .iiiti ('on«>trnctii)n, hut in W^ practical oixiation anil cttVct in |iro- ducinj^ tho nHi-ful rcHiiit. Ifiid., 4()ft. 80. It* ft coniliinalion inoliuh'S new pnti'iitahic niatiir with olil mailer not l>altiiial)li', it makes :i nt!\\ patcntah!*- romliiiialioii. Iliiin v. Morae^ MS. (App. (:as.)-CuANCii, Ch. J.; D. ('., J8H). ;{(1. Ami it is nut flic less patent. (hlc hec;niM it im-liiiU's new malter in cori- nt'ction with the old. Tho hul n>ay not in itself he paU'ntahh' ; hut joined to the new, !i coiuhination may he lormed which may ho patented. Ifnil. .T7. Nor is the inventor ohliged to take separate pati'iits for each new pat- linlahle matter; he may he willinj; to ask only f;h all the parts {jjoin;^ to constitute the plaintiff's invention — a car wheel — may have been known be- fore and developed in prior wheels, if the patentee first hioiii;ht them together into a whole, .and that whole is materi- ally different from any whole that ex- isted before, he is the original and first inventor, and entitled to a patent there- for. MiDiy V. Sizcr^ MS. — Si'uaguk, J.; Mass., 1849. 39. Where the effect and oper.ition of mcehanic.al contrivances, -which are to be deli'rmined l»y experts, enter into the question of tlu; extent of a com- bination, it is a mixed question of law and by tlie jury, under instrui'tionn from tho liourt. J'hote v. Silnfti/, I lUatchf., 458, 405.— Nkj.«o.n, J.; N. Y., IH40. 40. One part of II cnmbln.ilion being old does not necessarily prevent the combination, itself being mw. J/tili v. Wileit, 2 Mlatehf, 199.— Nklmon, J.; N. v., 1861. 41. It is imnmtorial whether the pat- enlet> is the inventor of any one or more of the ehuncnts of a cond)inntion. These inuy aW bo old ; but if tho pat- entj'c was the first toeomhine them, for |Im> purpose specified in his patent, his pali'tit will be good. Fiutto v. Silshy^ 2 r.latchf., 270.— Xiaso.v, J.; N. Y., ib:*!. 42. To defeat a «'Iaim for !i combina- tion, by the existence of a prior com- bination, such prior combination nnist have been ono of j)ractieal utility, and must have j'lnbraced all tho »'lemeiit» embraced in the plaintiff's combiiiatioii. Ihid., 27."). 4;). Where a patentee claims a ccr- t.'iin combination of machinery as his invention, his da; in can only be sustain- ed by esf;i'>lishing its novelty — not as to its parts, but as to the combin;itioii. It will not supi)ort the patent to show iliat a new result is produced. IjC Hoy V. 7ht/iATIINTAr«l,l; CllNlfTHL-irTlD.V i>r rATKWTH rOR. but til*' aiiplicntiMll of the rhnm nImiuIiI ho It'll to tho juiry. Sihhy v. Fvote, I J lldw., '-".'0. ('( KiiH, J,; Sup, (H., 1852. 45. The um» (if Ik hlai't in (>uiitH'('t!«Mi with II him>-kilti, buiii^ tu w, n* nUn the t'l'Utiiro of '>'iioruill>j( ht>;it in i\w hiiiiic rui'Miico tu i/iirn tho utoiio, iiikI itrodiicc Nti'iirn in tho boih'r to work thi hlowi-rs, uiid tho urnuij^c H'lit crtVi-tiiii^ a '^rtviii;. of I'lH'l, //»/'/, thiit Hiii'h iinimgi'iiu'iit or ('oiiil>iii!itinii WHS jmt«ntuhU«. tSoe/fy, A'c/K/J'^', RfS. (App. Can.) — Mokkkij., .1.; I). C, 1853. U\. If tho npi'cifloiition, tiikon us u wiioh', KmvoH no roiiNoimhh; (l(Mi}>t cori- (•orniiijf till! intiMition of the pati>ntt^o to iiiitluiltt ill his claim n oii'taiii pari of a (•()uil»iiiatloii, tho(i'4li fhiTi! may Ix? an error in tlt'H(ribiiii,j it, it will he coii- KiiU'rcil an iiK'ludud. Kittle v. Mer- »«a»i, 2 Curt., 470. — Curtih, J.; Mass., 1855. 47. To make a valid olaim for a <"om- hination, it in not noccswary that tin' sovoral t'lcmciitary parts of the coinlii- iiation plumld act Bitnultaiiooiisly. If such parts arc so arranged that tho Kur- cossivo action of each contrihutes to produco one result — which result is tho product of tho simultaneous or sueees- sivc action of all siudi parts — a valid clahn for combhiinj^ such elementary parts may bo made. Forbush v.- Cook^ 10 Mo. Law llep., 005. — CuHTis, J.; :\[;iss., 180 7. 48. Nor is it necessary to include in the claim for the combination, as ele- ments thereof, all parts of tho macrhine which arc necessary to its action. Ibid., 6';\ 49. If a combination is new and use- ful within tho meaning of the pat<'nt laws, it is the subject of a patent, an.l it is not imi>ortant whether it required much or little thought, study, or experi- titent to mnke ii, or uhuther it vo«tii much or tin •' expense to tlevisu uud expcute it. t blil.t 007. 50. Tho UMo «>f new m.'ileriaiH in n combination, or a chanp* of form, uP the II ' of one cipiivulcnt for Miiothuf, dotw nio*lo of o))- elation in list be introdiir d. /AAA, 007. 51. Viid it is deeiHlve, thouj^h not thu only c\ dt'nc'*', that a now mode of ojh eraiion lias been ii M'oduoed, if eitlu-r a new elfect, or a better otfe( ' or a>4 gooiil an effect more economicalb ittaiiicd, is prodiicol by lli channe. J/fiil., 008. 52. If a person iii\>,ii a new rnc- chaniral device or arraiifj^ement, to bo used in the place of a t'ormcc d'vice or arraii;^eineii( which was a pi»rt of a cer- tain combination, and which new device is iitdepeiuU-nt of all other similar do- vices, and is not to \>o used in conjunc- tion with, or in aid of, or in addition to such <»ld <1> \ice, which made ono of the elements of tho old combinittion, lie may have a j)atent for .•. combination containing his new ilevice or arrange- ment, in connection with the remaining parts of tho old combination, as such combination constitutes a now machine, and not an improvement merely on tliu niaehine, containing the combinafion of the old elements. Potter v. Ilolktnd^ MS.— iNdKiwoi.L, J.; Ct., 1858. 53. Hut if such new mechanical do- vice is but an improvement on tho old or former one, and is to bo used in con- junction with, or in aid of, or in addi- tion to, tho oUl one, then, it .■loems, ho coiiM only have a patent for his improve- ment and not for the whole combination. Ibid. 54. Though a coinl)inatlon of machin- ery, or a part of it may not be now, when used to jn'odiice a new jn-oduct, -»''*^\ IV v^^^Wwt^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT.3} !l.O 1.1 no ■M 12.5 US U ■ 40 11-25 iu 2.0 nil 1.6 Hiotographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ! o^ WW I •••-'' T^-" iiiii 5?*tli !i 1 >*L < 1^'^ ^kU 186 CO>rr,INATI()N, B. ixfhin(1kmk.;t or I'atent rou. if it is so t'oiiibiiit^d and iiioditii-d as to produou now results, there is novolt;- within the patent law. Ze Jioi/ v. Tu- tham^ 22 How., 139. — McLkan, J.; Siij). Ct., 185'J. 65. One now and operative .agency in the j)roJiiction of tlie desired result gives novelty to the ent're combination. Ifjul, 139. 50. ^Vlthough the elements of a com- bination may not be new, yet if the combination and arrangement of j^arts are new, .and produce useful and valuable results, the invention is patentable. Xa- rowe, Ex parte, MS. ( App. Cas.) — Dun- lop, J.; D. C, IBOO. 57. In order to make a combination patentable, its constituent parts should be co-active, and not dead parts. The connection of a thousand dead parts in one machine having but a single opera- tion, can never be considered a com- bination, lieny, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.)— Mo isELL, J. ; D. C, 1860. 58. Though the combination of parts in a machine may be old, yet if the parts dift'er in constrtiction, and are so made for a specific purpose, and the eft'ect or result produced by such change in construction is valu.able, and the com- bination has never before been applied to such purpose, the aiTangement or com- oination is new and patentable. 3lac- hay. Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Moit- SELL, J.; D. C, 1860. 59. Though all the primary elements of a combination, or all its sub-conibina- tions have existed before iu different ma- chines, if they have never before been brought together to constitute one ma- chine, and co-operate to jiroduce one re- sult, the person who so brings them together is entitled to a patent for such combination and arrangement. Howe v. Morton, MS. — Spkaguk, J.; Mass., 1860. 60. There are two chiJ^ses or kinds of combinations which arj proj)erly the sul'Ject of a patent. First, in wliidi all the parts were before known, and where the sole merit of the invention coiiisists in such an arrangement of tlicni as to produce a new and useful result, or where an inventor has succeeded in making such an arrangement of known l>arts, that they produce a result never before obtained. Hecond, where some of the parts or elements of the com- bination are new, and their invention claimed, but where they are used in com- bination with parts or elements that were known before. Lee v. Jilandy, MS. — McLean, Leavitt, JJ. ; Ohio, 1 860. 01. Parts of a machine which do not perform any distinctive valuable func- tion, or confer any utility upon the com- bination, and are in fact useless in their operation, will not make the combinn- tion patentable. Thomas, G. D., Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Mekkick, J. ; D. C, 1860. B. Infringement of Patent fob. 1 . An action will not lie by a paten- tee of an improvement, consisting of a combination of several machines, against a person who has made or used one of'the machines, which in part con- stitutes the discovery. Eoans v. Eaton, Pet., C. C, 343, 344. — Washington, J.; IX 1816. 2. The separate parts of a combina- tion may be used without any infringe- ment of the patent, but they cannot be used in their combined state to produce by the same operation the same result. Gray v. James, Pet., C. C, 401.— Washington, J. ; Pa., 1817. 3. If a patent is for a combination of several machines, it is no infringement COMinXATlON, J 5. I.NFlllNdKMKNT 0»' I'ATKNT I'OU. of the i»!Vteiit to use any of the inuchiiifs BC'pJir.'itcIy, If tlio wliolo combination in uot usod. Barrett y.JIall^ 1 Mas., 474, 477. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1818. 4. Where a patent is for a new com- bination of existing macliinery or ma- chines, and does not specify or chiini any improvement or invention, except the combination, u/iless that combina- tion is substantially viola^^^ed, the paten- tee is not entitled to any remedy, al- though parts of the ni.achinery are used by another. Moody v. Fiske^ 2 Mas., 117. — Story, J. ; Mass., 1820. 5. In such a case, proof that the machines, or any part of their fetructu.-e, existed before, forms no objection to the patent, unless the combination liad existed before. Ibid.^ 117. 6. "Wlu're a patentee, in his patent, claimed three things, not sejjarately, but in combiuation, and the defendants made use of but two of the three i»arts, Jleld^ that unless the whole combina- tion was substantially xued by the de- fendants, it was not an infringement of the plaintiff's patent, although one or more of the parts may be used by the defendants. Protcty v. Ruggles, 1 Story, 571.— Story, J. ; Mass., 1841. [Affirm- ed 1842, jt)os« 9.] 7. A patent for a combination of A, B, and C cannot be technically or legally deemed at once a combination of A, B, and C, and of A and B alone. Ibid., 572. 8. Where a patent is for an entire process or combination, and not for the several parts of it, and a party does not use the entire process or combination, but only a part, it is not a violation of the thing patented. Jloioe v. Abbott, 2 Story, 194.— Story, J.; Mass., 1842. 9. If a combination, as claimed and patented, consists of several (three) parts, arranged in a particular manner, with reference to each other and to other parts of the machine or thing, the use of uny two of such parts only, or of the two combined with a third which is substantially different in form, or iu the manner of its arrangement, or con- nectitjn with the others, is not an infringement of the thing patented. Prouty V. Ihiygks, 10 I'et., 341. — Ta- m;y, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1842. 10. One combination is not the same with another, if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts. Ibid.^ 340. 11. A patentee of an improvement in the cotton-gin described and claimed his invention as consisting in a particu- lar ibrm of the rib, for separating the fibre from the seed, and so connecting the lower and U])per surfaces of the rib, that when the rib loas inserted in the frame, there should be no break or shoulder, but a smooth uninterrupted j)assage upward between the ribs. Jleld, that his patent was for the combination of the form of the ril). of the manner of connecting its up])er and lower sur- faces, and the manner of fixing or fast- ening it to the frame as stated ; and that if- the defendants did not fix or fasten the ribs of their machine against tlie framework substantially in the manner described in the plaintiffs pat- ent, they were not guilty of any viola- tion, of the plaintiffs patent. Carver v. Hyde, IG Pet., 518, 520.— Taney, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 1842. 12. The use of any one of certain specified improvements of a combina- tion, included in a patent, of which the patentee was the inventor, without any violations of the others, is sufficient to entitle the patentee or his assigns to an action of infringement. Pitts v. Whit' „., 188 COMBINATION, IJ. I <:■; -n: ^ m 'fHV ';v> i% 'n INFlllSUEMENT OF I'ATENT FOR. m((n^ 2 Story, 021. — Stobv, J.; Me., 1843. 13. Wlu'i-e an invention conHists in t)ie coniltination of certain known mo- ch.'inical structures, the use of any parts essential to such combination, less than the whole, is no infringement. Brooks V. Bic/c/iell, 3 INIcLeaii, 453, 454. — Mc- Lean, J.; Ohio, 1844. 14. IJy a change in position in a com- bined machine, its mechanical action is not affected. Ibid,, 455. 15. There is no infringement of a com- bined machine, unless every pari is used. Jiroolcs V. Jiicknell, 4 INIcLean, 73. — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1845. 10. A pivtont for a combination is not infringed by the use of any part less than the Avhole of the combination. Jioot V. UI((U, 4 3IcLean, 180, -McLean, J.; Ohio, 1840. 11. Where a patent is for a new com- bination, and not for newly invented parts, a violation m.ist extend to the whole. Aiken v. Bonis, 3 Wood. & Min., 353. — ■Woodbury, J. ; Mass., 1847. 18. "Where an invention consists of a combination of known mechanical powers, the use of a part less than the whole combination, is no infringement. Parker v. Ilaworth, 4 McLean, 373. — McLean, J.; 111., 1848. 19. But where the invention consists not only in the combination, but in the improvement of several of the parts of the combination, the violation of one of them is an infringement for which an action will lie. Ibid., 374. 20. Whe.'e a patent is for a combi- nation, constructed and operating in a particular way, to constitute an in- fringement, the defendant must have used the same combination, construicted and operating substantially in the same way. Gorhd n v. Mixter, 1 Ai.ier. Law Jour.; N. S., 643. — Si'itAOUK, J. ; Mass., 184!). 21. If but two of the three elements of combination are used, there is no hi- fringement. Nor is it any infringement if any one or all tlie elements of combi- nation were constructed and operated substantially ditfercnt from the plain- tifTs. Ibid., 543. 22. Nor do additions or improve- ments to a combination, or any element thereof, though meritorious, give any right to use or appropriate the original combination. Ibid., 543. 23. In a patent for a new and useful improvement in the mode of forming rails for railroad carriages, for use in cities, &c., " where it is desirable that the wheels of ordinary carriages should not be subjected to injury or obstruction," the patentee claimed the employment of plates or vails having n.arrow grooves on each side of the track for the flantres of the car wheels to run in, by which they were adapted to the unobstructed pass- ing over them of the various kinds of common carriages, such rails being also sunk to a level with the surface of the street. Held, that such patent consisted of the combinations of such grooves with the rail, on both sides of a railroad track, and such combination being de- pressed to a plane corresponding with the street, and that the use by the de- fendant, of a double iron rail, with a groove or interval between, large enough for the flange of the wheel, placed on the inner side of a curve, the ordinary flat iron rail being used on the exterior line of the s.ame curve, and the whole constructed on the same plane with the general track of the road, without re- gard to the convenience of carriages to pass over it, was not an infringement H.i<, .' ^SKi'! COMBINATION, B. ISO ii: '^- Mm ISFKINdKMKNT OF PATENT FOR. of siicli cumbiiiation, hnviiig iisuil but Olio ek'ineiit of the jilaiiitilf's combiuji- tioii. i^tuiipHon V. Iir, Held, that the patent was for tho entire and com- plete mode described, and was not in- fringed by nutting up matches attached at one end, but not wrapped in strips of paper. Byam v. Farr, 1 Curt., 205. — Curtis, J. ; Mass., 1852. 30. If a combination has three (".if- ferent known parts, and the result is accomplished by the union of all these parts, arranged with reference to each other, the use of two of these parts only, combined with a third, substan- tially different from the former, is not the same combination, and no inter- ference. Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How., 219. — Catron, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 3 1 . A patent which claims mechanical powers or things in combination, is not infringed by using a part of the com- bination. To this rule there is no ex- ception. MeCormick v. Many, 6 Mc- Lean, 54V. — McLean, J.; 111., 1855. 32. Where the invention consists of a combination of known mechanical pow- ers, the use of less than the whole will be no infringement. Pitts v. Wemph 6 McLean, 601: — McLean, J. ; 111., 1855. 33. If the whole of the combination be taken, though something be added, still it is an infringement. Ibid., 561. 34. Where the riglit of recovery rests Hid as,, -I .' 111'' 4i.|; 100 COMI'.INATION', 1{. iNI'KINUKUKXr or TATKNT I'OIL on a C()inl)liiatinii, tlio plaiiififT nniNt imtvo tli.'it, all those parts siiltstaiitial to tla'ir coiiiMiiatioii liavo Ik.'cii iist'd l>y the (li'ti'iidniits. Tho t'liiployiiu'iit of one or more of t host' parts less than tiio wholo will not constitntc an intViiii^c- nient. >>inUh v. liUjgins^ MS. — Uiaxs, J.; N. Y., 1857. 3'). If an invention Is an iin|trovc'- nicnt on a known niaehini' by a mere clianLT*' of form or coinltination of parts, the patonteo cutuiot treat anotluT as an infrinj^er who lias improved tlie orij^inal macliine l»y nse of u diflerent form or coniliination performinLC the same fniic- tions. The inventor of the first im- provements cannot invoke tho doetrino of equivalents to suppress all otlier im- provements whieh are not merely color- ahle invasions of the iirst. McCorniirk v. Tih-oti, I'O How., 405.— GuiKU, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. !JG. A elaim for a combination of meehanieal devices or i)arts is not in- frintjeil by one who nses a part of the combination. Ibul.^ 40(). 37. In a ))atent for a combination there is no infrint;;ement, unless all the essential parts of the combination are substantially imitated. Bell v. Daniels, JMS.— Leavitt, J.; Ohio, 1858. S8. It is familiar law that there is no infringement of a combination, unless the defendant nses all the parts of whieh that combination is composed. Latta V. Shatck, MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1859. 39. But there is another kind of com- bination to which this doctrine does not •npply, and that is where the combina- tion is of old .and new parts of a ma- chine. In such a case, if a defendant takes the new part only, he infringes, Ibid. • 40. Where a patcTitee claims a part of his meeh:mic:il contrivance as an e-isenti;d elenu-nt of a i'ombiiialion, but wiiieh is really not material to his invention, he may Htill recover aj^aiiist llm.se wlu) dispense with it while usiu" the rest of the combination. I'd/iir v. ('iuiij>l/ttl, MS. — Leaviit, J.; Ohio, 1850. 1 1. Where a patent was for a certain coiiibinatiou of maehinery designed or inlendi.l to elfect a certain purpose (dyeing parti-colored skeins of yarn by innnersion in a dye, and at the same lime gatiging or measuring the extent of coloring of the skein), which was not new, Jfild, that in ordt-r to estab- lish an infringement, the patentee nnist show that the defendant is emiiloyins substantially the same description of machinery. If the defendant employs maehinery of a different desc-iption, a different mode of accomplishing the same result, the patentee has no ground of comi>laint. ^S^nith v. JIi(/[/i/it<, ]MS. — Nki.son, J.; N. Y., 18(50. 42. In a combination where all the parts have before been known, and the invention consists in a- new arrange- ment of them to produce a useful re- sult, there is no infringement unless a party has used all the elements of such a cond)ination. J,ce v. Blandy, ]MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1 8G0. 43. In a combination where some of the elements iire new, and their inven- tion claimed, but they are used in com- bination with old parts, there will be an infringement by the use of that part Avhieh is new, and the invention of the jiatentee. Ibid. 44. A patent for a combination of old things a])i)lied to produce a new and useful result, is not violated, unless all its parts or elements are used. Dodge V. Card, MS.— Leaviit, J.; Ohio, 1860. IfS'^^i COMMISSION I:R 01-' I'ATKNTS, A-V. 101 I'OWKIIH ()»"— ACTKIM or, WIIBM t'ONCI.L'HIVIC. C'OMMTSSIOXKU OF I'ATKNTS. \, I'oWKU OP; ON Api'UOAtions ror-. and IN ailANTINO I'ATKNTH IDI II. I'liWEIl OK; ON iNTKUhKllKNCKH 191 C, TowKiior; on Si.uusnkkuh and I{k- ISSIIK9 I'JI |>, I'dWKU (IK ; ON KXTENHIONH I'JI i;. I'OWKU OF; IN (/AHKH OP AlM'KAI 1!>1 f". Action ok; wiikn Concm'sivk I'jl Ci. "AOTINUCuMMlHllIONUU;" ToWKItH OP l!);i A. I'oWKKOK; OV Ari'LU'ATIONSFOU, ANU IV (ill ANTING PaTKNTS. See Ai'PMC'ATiONs Fou Patents, 15. B. POWKUOP; ox TNTKRFICItKNCFS. ' Sc'o Inteufekknck.s, a. C. PoWRIt OP ; O.V SUURKNDEUS AND lllCISSUES. Sco Reissue op Patent, B. D. PowEK OF ; ON Extensions, Sco Extension of Patent, B. E. Power of; in Caseh op Appkal. See Appeal, B. 2. F. Action of ; wnEN Conclusive. 1. Tlio necessary consequence of tlie ministerial character in wliich the secre- tary of state (now Commissioner of Pat- ents) acts, is, that the performance of the prerequisites of the patent — as wheth- er a correct specification and ilosciip- tion of the invention has been niado, and in sucli full terms as is required l>y law — is re-examinable in any action! hroiii^ht ii|inM the patfiil. (I'ntut v. Ji'ii/nintiif, (1 Pet., 'JH, :;t2. — Mau- siiAi.i,, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., \H-A'2. '2. 'I'liDuj^h tlio d(■ci^4i(||| of the Hoard of CoinmissioiiL'rs (their power iH now viHted ill «he Commissioner of Patents), eoiistiliited l»y |5 IH of the act of IH;UJ, to iletermine as to tlie extension of a patent, is eoiiehisivo within tlie scopu of its authority; it is not, howover, eoneJMsive upon the question of law, as to the rii;ht of reiuswal. Uroo/cs v. Jiif/i/iill, a McLe.an, 258. — McLean, J.; Ohio, IH4H. ;J. Such decision is however entitled to feifard, as a practical construction of the law tliat the heirs of a patenteo m.'iy procure a renewal of a patent ; and such a construction is in accordance with tlie jtrinciple and polic} of the law. I/n'[>. 4. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents upon a reissue is conclusive, unless impeached on account of tVaud or connivance between him and the pat- entee, or unless an excess of authority is manifest upon the very face of tho papers. yiUen v. Ulioit, 3 Story, 744. — Story, J.; Mass., 1H45. 5. Where a ]»articul.'ir authority is confided to a public officer, to be exer- cised by him in his discretion, upon an examination of facts, of which ho is made the appropriate judjfe, his de- cision upon these facts, i i, in the ab- sence of any controlling provisions, ab- solutely conclusive as to the existence of those facts. Ibid, 745. G. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents, in accepting the surrender of .an old and granting a new patent, is not rc-examiiiable elsewhere, unless it is apjiarent from the face of ihe patent, that he has exceeded his authority, or there is a clear repugnancy between the *«■ '.VWv ,%c'v; ^C, r*'trr i%v,i:^.^,,..,£:H^ «ltk>|«<«»Wh£ \ «•> 102 COMMISSIONKIl OP PATKNTS, F. ACTION or, WHIM ('ONCMHIVK. < % m lift titf'' m 5;^ oM and new pat»'iu, or the new ono haH brt'ii c)l»taiMi'il l»y CKlluHion l)ot\vi'»'ii tlif CoiMtiiiHsiDnor and tlio patentee. IVood- teorth V. /Stnuc, M Story, 783, 764. — Ktokv, J. ; IMasH., 1848. 7. Till' decision of the ofliccrH of the government in grunting a renewed pat- ent, by reanon of a deleetivo or iiiHulIi- cient Hpecification, ite., is jn'inia fitcie evidenee that the chiirn for a renewal >vas within the statuti-; and eonehtHive, except as to fraud. The in is a clcur repugnancy bt'twoen tin; oltl and tlie new patent, «>i' nnleNH tho new ono Iuih Ih'cii obtained by eoIiuMlon between the Coinmissioner and tlie patentee. J'ottc.r v. Jfolland, MS. — Inokksoli,, J. ; (U., 1H58. 1«. Tho doc'ision of a t'ornier Com- missioner of J'atentu, while Jinreversed, is biiidin^x npon a Hubsofinent Conunis- bioner. jMroirc, Ki' parte, MS. — (App. Cas.) DuNLor, J.; I). C, 1800; Simjt- ton, Hx parte. Ibid,, 1801. G. "AcriNG Commissioner," PowKits OF. 1. A p.atcnt is not invalid because it is ocrtilled by a person as " at'tintf Commissioner, instead of beinj.r certified by the Commissioner liimself. Wilson V. Kosscaii, 4 How., OOH, 088. — Nelson, J.; Sup. Ct., 1845. 2. The certifieato to a patent, made by a person as " acting Commissioner," is legal and sufficient. Woodioorth v. Hall, 1 Wood. & Mill., 254.— Wood- bury, J.; Mass., 1840. 3. The appointment of an acting Com- missioner will be presumed to have been duly made, where drawn in ques- tion incidentally or collaterally, if it be shown that the person certifying is in the public discharge of those duties. Ibid., 255. 4. The signatures of acting Commis- sioners carry as much verity and legal- ity on the face of certificates them- selves, as those of tho Commissioner himself. Ibid., 256. 5. It is questionable whether evidence is admissible in an action between third parties, where the Commissioner is not u party, that an acting Commissioner 13 hafl not been duly appointed ; it ih to be presnnu'd he was duly appointed. WoadumitU v. ll(dl, 1 Wood. A Min., :tl»7, :M)8.— VVooDuiuv, J. ; Mass., 1h40. 0. I'nder {J 2 of tho act of IHUO, the chief clerk hiis l»een considered as the "acting Commissioner,'' whenever the Commissioner lias been unable to work al>i'tt|^< il. //>/(/., ait. G. Till' I'oriiicr iiilViiij^os tlm copy- right, it' iiiiittiT trtuiscrihi'd, whori |)uli- llMheil, nIi:iII iiii|):iii' thu vahio of the ori;^iriaI IxmiU; ," liiir aliridf^mciit, ihoiigli it limy iiijiiru tlio ut-igiiial, in hiwt'iil. I/ntL, Ml 4. 0. Ami w hilo a prior compiler can- not inoiiopiili/t! wliat waH not orij^inal with liiiiisi'If, iiiid what must he nearly iihMiticai in all Hiich works as diction- arii's, gazetteers, «fcc., in a like subjeet, u siil)se(pient compiler cannot employ Ko nnieh of a prior arrangement and materials as to hhow a substantial in- vasion of tlie other, and not character- ized by enough new or improved to indicate new toil and talent. ]\'if)/» v. J\mtrs, '2 Wood. &. iMiii., 51!), 514.— WooDHLUY, J. ; Mass., 1847. COMPOSTTTOX OF lilATTER. A. What Patentaulb 10 1 B« How SHOULD Bt: SET FORTH IN SPECI- FICATION' 105 C. Infuingkment of Patent fob 19G A. What Patentable. 1. It is not necessary that every in- gredient, or that any one ingredient used by the patentee in his invention, should be new or unused before for the purpose intended. The true question is whether the combination of materials used by the patentee is substantially new. Hyany. Goodwin^ 3 Sumn., 618. — Stoey, J. ; Mass., 1839. 2. Kacli of th«' Ingn'dientH may havo been in e\teiir«ive and common iisr, and some uiay havu lu'en ilNed for the Nunio purpose, but if they have never boen comliim-tl together in the manne slated in the patent, !.ut the combination 1h new, the invention of the combination is patentable. I/)i(l., filH. 3. The patentee is not limited to tho Name precise iiii;redieiitN in making his compound. It' the Hiime purpose can be accomplished by the Nulmtitution in part of other ingredients, lie can extend his patent so as to embrace them also, subject to the risk of having his patent defeated 'f cither of tho original or substituted combinations have been known or UHcd in the combiiiatiun. lOkf., 621. 4. It is not every alteration or change in tho quantity or r; in tlin lut- t(w nml orijLciiiiil, iiikI IhiiIi |i;itrriliil»l»', not MoviTiilly, l»ut iih oiio dim'ovory or invention. /AiV/., 'M\\. 8. If a piitcntt'o b« thu invonlnr or discoverer of a new iniimifiiefuro or coiiipoHitioii of nmttor not known or iisL'il by ofhorN boforo liiH (liHeovcry thereof, hirt franeluMO, or m>lo ri^lit lo UMO iin nrtitieial i« n );ood and wholi>!4ome hiibstilufe for the real, and cati lie tna(b' a. id supplied at ft cheaper rate, then' is no jjood n-ason why it should not bu deemed n new and useful inventioti. Cifhin tb .Vnrfliff, Hx pnrti\ MS. (.\pp. CaM.) — Muuhki.i., J.; I). C, 1807. n. How TO UK HKT KOKTII IN SlMXIFI" CATIOSf. 1. In ft patent for n compot^itiuu of matter, the specification must be so full and clear as to enalde one skilled in thu art to which it ajipertaiiis to compoutKl and use the invention without niakin'f any experiments of Ids own. Woody. Ihidirhdl, 5 How., 5.— Tanev, Ch. J.; Sujt. Ct., IH40. 2. Where the specification of a new composition of matter gives oidy the names of the substances to be ruixed togetlier, without stating any relative proportion, o: where the proportions are stated .'Hiiltiguously or vaguely, tho patetit is void, as it would not enai>lo any one to compound and use tho in- vention witliout experiment. Ihid., 5. .T. But where tho p.atente(i gives a certain proportion as a general rule, which on the face of tho specilication seems generally applicable, the patent will be valid, though soiuc small diller- ence in the proportions may be occa- sionally required, according to the |ii'iii>i'NM itiiii iihmIi' nt' «'i)|ll|lill|||i|il|^ Ik IKMV IIMil VIllllllMl' rnMi|toHiiii)n ot* iniitlor, coiirlM Hlmiilil f;i\i< it II lihi'i'iit ritiMlnit'litiii, If ilii< pali'iiItT liiiM hi't t'nrtli t'lillv till' nii'tlniiilN, llifir vtiiiiiiiM |iro|Mirtii>nM, iiml llio pro- (•iN iii'OCNMiiry to till* pruiliit'liiiii nf M.irh fMin|) I'll!! tlim'liiNiiro of ilii> iliMi'ov- »ry, iiinl tin' I'xtcnt ol' tlu' invi>n(or'N I'l.lillH. Tho CXil'Ilt of lIlO |llllOlltco'K riiilit iniiHt Im> jiiili;oil iVnm tlio wliolo itixtniiiu'iit takoii to^othor, iiikI not iVoiii any oiio Hciitotuv. /fihf., Mtll, H, In piitontK for coinplii-iitiMl inn- oliiiioH, it in cMMMitiiilly propor tliiit tlu' upocilication hIiouM cloarly net forth what the pat.>iit«>t< ailinits to hooM, and MJial ho olaiins to ho of his iiivi'iition. I'nit in aiioinaloiiH cason, when ii prod- wct has hoon - rosH of conipomuliiij; it or ohlainin«» it is (lisclosoti, tho palcntoo 1»y statint; liis (lisi'ovoiy and rovcaliiit: his procosH Ims dono all that ho i;» rcquirod to do or can do. Tho o.-ircfiil soparation of now from old, tho litniiation of olaims to l^artioular jvirts or oonihinations, oaiuiot 1)0 roipiirod as .1 substantial part of the spooifioation. rf)i(7., 365. C iNFmNQEMENT OF PaTKJH" FOR. 1 . The nsinpj or vending of ti patented composition of m.itter is a violation of the right of the proi>riotor. W/ii'fe- mnrt V, Cuttrr, 1 flnll., 4!l.1.--fhoiiT, .1.; MiiHM., iMi.t. 'I. Tho Hiibr*tiliitioii in pliii'o of iini< I'loiiiriit ill n CniiipiiMltion of nillttor of a inoro known i'ii. iiii'iit, but tho piitonloo is not oblii;)>d to onibriioo oipii\iiloiit*« in hit oliiiiii, miil if tho Npooilloiiiinii and oliiini oxprcMoly di'i'laro that niioIi iMpiivalont is oiniii Inl iVoni tho patmtoo's invontioii, thru itH iiKo Ih not an infi'iii^;)*niont. Itiftim v. /'brr, I Curt., '2t».'l.--('lnriiK, J.; IMiism, :i. WIh'io tho old niolhod of inakiii<^ tViotion inati'hoN was, to nsr a rumpo. sitioii of phoiatontoo '•otiNiHttil in rojoctiii^x till' ohlor. to of potash ami siilphiirot of antimony, and Hiihsiiintin^ in thoir place chalk or Honio earthy mat- tor, and his claim was "the iisiii^ n (oniposition of phosphorus and carlliy material and a ^liitiiioiis snbstaiu*', without tho iddition of chlorate of potash or of any highly coiubiisiih1i< material,^* and tho dofoudant iisod a composition consisting of phosphorus, sulphurct of antimony and ghu>, omit- ting only the chlorate of potash, //w combination of old materials before in use for that purpose, consisting of a composition formed of phospliorus with the earthy materi:il and glutinous subst.inco only, without chlorate of potash or other like objeo y^^^^k CONCJIIKSS. 197 l.*OIIII.*H\ K riiw»,it iw hhnvr I'tTBNIil iiiiniil»l)> lii)|ri*i|iciil, /A/'/,llitUiiiiy|ii tlii'iii ill **oiiilMii:klii)ii Willi rlilitriitii of liotii^li UM llii'y WITH rortiHM'ly iim*'i|. //yr/m V. /'
  • , lliil 11 iiiiTt^ coloniMo iir |lli;{lll VtU'ilktilMI of III)) t'lilllliillillinll woo'il not ttx(ttii|il II |M>rNoii from tin' clillfl,' • of llllViliHi'liH'lil. //*/«/., tt'2t. II. All ii>lViii;^'itiiii'iit rnriHiHls ill iniikiii^' II i-oiii|MMiii>l HiiliHliititiiilly ill tlio Kitiiit' iiioiK* tiM tlial tor wliifli tlit* |iut«Mil liiis Ih'oii ' ' '••iiiftj. Attun V. Iliinti,\ II McLou. .III.- M< Lma.n, .f.; Ohio, iMrtri. 7. WIhtm tlif iiii^ri'tiiriilK in i\ (;oiii- |ioiiiiil arc till) Maiiic, aiiili- "iit liaviii;^ lint naiiin i|ii tiitirs and lo-n- (liM'tii;^ till! haiin- i'chiiIi, tlieru i.s u.. in- triii;;i*iii«>iit. Ihiil,^ \\\'>\. H. Wln-ro a pati'iit, in ^raiitrd for a ('oin|iositioii of Kfvcral iiii^rcdiciilM, il t'ovrrs and fmltraccs kimwii ciinivalfnls of I'acli of" the iii;^n'diriilM. Mattltvinn \.S/c'itis, MS. — .loNKrt, J.; Ala., 1800. 0. All «>i|iiivalt'iit of any Hiiltstaiicit h aiiotlicr Hulistaiico having Niinilar j)ro|torli('s, and producing; Hulistaiilially tilt' Haiiu) I'rtbct. Wlu'tliL'r ono Hub- htaiice is an t-qnivalcut of another is a ([iicMtioii for tho jury from the evidence. Ihid. CONGRESS. 1. Tlio power of Conj^ress, under the 8th Bcction of the Constitution, " in se- curing to authurH and inventors the ex- rtiiNU t' rlulit to llii'li' ri><«| tivii M rillngi ainl iliM-oxiii's" it liirtili'd to uiithori and iiivt'iitori only, nnd tlocn not vm- liritiut intrmliiiiifn who am not thn uiillior>t and invintor'^. /.initnjKtnn v, \'iin Inyin, U John., :.Hi), MKl, r.M'2.— Vaiks, 'riiouihoN, und Kk.mi, JJ. ; N. v., iHli. 'i. Iliit Hiu'h t'laifo ilooH not provnnt the Ki'Vcral nlali's IVoi.i oxfrcinin;^ the powi r of f.('«'iiiinv,' to purMoiiN inliodii''' ili^ iiNrfnl invt'litioiiH the cxrliiHive Ih>M> I'iitH of HiM-h iiivmilonM for a liniiti'd period. ////«/., r.llO, r.lKl, TtH'i. ;i. TIki powtr of CJon^rimM is only to aMciTtain and delliie the ri^hlH of property in the invention or work; it dot'H not extend to i'e;;iilaliii^ the uhu of it. This irt exeliiHively of local eoj^. \\\/M\iw. Hiieli property, like every other HpeiaeH of property, iiiiiHt he iiNed ainl enjoyed H'ithin eaeliNtate aecnirdin^ to the l:iws oi" eai'li state. ////(/., r>H|. ■1. ('(.n;^reMS ;nay renew a patent, or decline to do ho. The ^raiit of an ex- cliisivu privilege to an inventor for u limited time does not imply a hiiidin^ and irrevocalile contract with the peo- lile, that at the expiration of the period the invention nIiiiII liecotne their prop* erty. Kminn v, /i'//o//, I'et., C. C, 3.17. WAHiiisfiToN, J.; I'a., 1HU5. T). IJiit even if such wuh the (;aso, there iH nothin^ '•^C, 1^. •^"■mS W^ J wt ;^ ^wwwt '^^1 L k il 9m^ ^p^i ■^ ^^•:kW| •W^ ^4 r.l W\ V)*.^' >*- 1U8 CONC.llKSS. •-y^ llr R! !;■* Hi 11.11 LKaiHLATIVB I'OWKU OK, IN BKSPIifl' TO fATENTS. eral act, tlio V)ril8 of w!iii;h do not right fo tnodity, at thoir iik-asiiri', tlio rt-.idi'r siu'h a ('('nsiiiu'tioii unavuidabU'. laws ri-spvcliiig j)atv'iits, so Inat tlu-y do J:,'cinis V. J'Aitoit, 3 Wheat., 51. J. Maks.'.ux, Ch. J.; Sup. <^t., 1818. 7. A I'l-iviito ai't of C'oiigf H8 author- iziiii; tho issue of a ])ati.'nt to iv\ iiui-ii- tor is to ho oo'-sidurt'd an oiigiafiod on tho gcnori!' acts for the promotion of the usefid arts, and sucii :; patent is issued in pursnanee of both. Jf)iil,,5l8. 8. Tho i»o\ver of Coti^ress as to grantitiLj patents is general, and it rests in tho Houiul discretion of Congress to sav wlien and for what length of time and iindi'r what eircmnstances a patent for an invention shall he granted. There is no restriction which limits the power of Congress to cases where tlio inven- tion has not been known or used by tlie public. All that is reipiired is, that the )atentee should be the inventor. Jild/i- chard v. /Spnttpie, 3 Sumn., 541. — Sto- ry, J.; Mass., 18:19. 9. Therefore the act of Congress (act of 1839, eh. It), granting a patent to Thomas ]»lanchard, is not nneonstitu- tional because it operates retrospective- ly to give a patent for an invention, ■which, though made by ♦lie patentee, was ii. public use and enjoyed by the community at the time of the passage of tho act. Ibid, 541. 10. An .•'ict of Congress passed in general terms ought to be so const rned, if it nnvy, as to be deemed a just exer- cise of constitutional authority, and not only so, but it ought to be construed not to opemto retrospectively, or ex post facto, unless liiat construction is unavoidable. Ibid., 542. 11. The power of Congress to legis- late upon the subject of patents is plen- ary by the terms of the Constitution, and as there are no restraints on its ex- ercise, there can be no limitation of their not takeaway tlio rights of properly in existing patents. JlriUunt v. Jui/ii/n. la»VIIHN MAY IIH lUl'UACUieU, OH UKOOVKIIKU UACK. 10. Tlicro is no iiukIo by wliu-h a li'jj- isliitivo JU't r:ui \h>. iniulo invpoalublo, oxci'j.l it iisHUino lliu roriii uiiil substance of ii I'untnift. IJut, tlu)nj4li no stato can impair tho obligations of a coutnu't, this inhibition dot's not apply to the gcni'ial government. Ibid., 101, 105. 'JO. A special act in relation to any particular patent, is to bo considereil as I'ligraftcil upon the general acts relating to i)atents ; they are statutes in pari initUria, anil all relate to the same sub- ject, aiul nr.ist bo construed together. JHooiiicr V. McQi. 21. Under the fifth anu>ndment of tiie constitution, declaring that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without duo process of law. Congress would have no right to pass nu act depriving purchasers of a pat- ented article of the right to use such article. 8u(.'h an act could not bo re- garded as duo process of law. IbhI., 56;J. 2'2. Under tho authority conferred upon Congress, by .article first, § 8th of the constitution, to promote tho jtrogress of pcienco and tho useful arts, by secu- rhig to inventors tlio excliLsivo right to their inventions, it does not follow that Congress may auihorize an inventor to recall rights which ho has granted to others ; or reinvest him with rights of property, which ho liad before convoyed for a valuable consideration. Ibid., 653. CONSIDERATION^ ON SALE OF PATENTS. 1. A promissory note given for an in- terest iu a patent-right, which was not valid, and had been fraudulently ob- tained, the patentee knowing at the tiino of his application that he was not tho true inventor, is void as being without consideration, and oven though certain things had been furnished by the as- signor, and he had given instruction in the art described in the patent. JUisa V. Neijim^H Mass., 51. — SKiHiwicK, J. ; Mass., 1811. 'J, Where the title to a patent passes, tho consideration mont>y, if paid, cannot bo recovered back, unless the contract lias been rescinded, or was accompanied by fraud, or with an express warran- ty, not fullilled. Case v. J/orei/, 1 N. IIan>p., 350. — Woodhuuy, J.; N. II., 1818. 3. Though tho title to a patent fails, tho purchaser caimot recover back tho consideration paid, if any benefits havo been derived from the use of tho pat- ent, providcvl such benefits were ecjuiv- aleiit, and the p irchaser Avas not liable for them to any prior patentee. Hold- en v. Curtis, '2 N. llainp., 05. — \Vood- nuuY, J.; N. II., 1819. 4. It seems a party would not bo bound by tho j)urchaso of a patent- right, whicli he had supposed to bo valid, nhen in fact it was invalid ; but such misconception cannot bo taken ad- vantag J of on a plea of want of consid- eration cou{)lod with fraud, but tho ecpiity should bo spread ui)on the record. JMlas wHays, 5 Serg. & I{awle,439- 442.— Giusox, J. ; Pa., 1819. 5. If a patentee include in his j)at- ent, along with his own invention, tho invention of another ]»erson previously patented, and sell the whole to a persoa ignorant of these facts and who supposed he was buying an exclusive right to tho whole, the sale is a fraud upon such person, anil the vendor cannot recover >t^M{ ^1 "^^w.w 4 Wiiwri Lii i J w 200 CONSIDKUATIOX ON SALE OF PATENTS. r WIIKN IIAY lilt! IMI'KACIIKD, OH KKCOVKUKI) HACK. J- J If! '*«H i !V note givi'ii for the consideration of the pureliHse. Turner v. Johm'on^ 2 (/ra., C. C, 287.— CitANcii, J.; D. C, 1822. 0. If a party sell an interest in apat- cnt-rij^lit, making representations that are ecpiivalent to a Avarranty that tlie invention is of vahie, but the title is passed by an ordinary bill of sale or as- sij^nincnt, which contains no words of <;uariiiity, the purchaser cannot go be- liiiul such assignment, and j)rove repre- sentations and assertions previous to the execution of the assigmnent, and thus avoid payment ; the presumption of law being that the writing contains the whole contract. Van, Ostraiidv. Itckl, 1 Wend., 432.— Savagk, Ch. J. ; N. Y., 1828. 7. It may be made a defence to an ac- tion on a note given in consideration of the sale of a i)atent, that the invention, if not usi'less, is of far less value than it wtls represented to be by the ven- dor at the time of sale, liurnham v. Brcicstcr, 1 Verm., 90. — IIutciiinson, J.; Vt., 1828. 8. In an action on a promissory note, given for the pnrch.ase of a patent-right, it is not a good defence under the i)lea of non assuwjysit, that the invention was of less value than it had been rep- resented, or that the vendor had falsely represented that another party had of- fered large sums for the right to use the patent. WiUiivns v. Jlicks, 2 Verm., 40, 42.— Paddock, J.; Vt., 1829. 9. An assignee of a patent sold the same, and at the time evhibited a ma- chine which he suppose was made ac- cording to such patent lut which was afterward found to be different from that patented and described in the spe- cification. Held, as the whole transac- tion was one founded on a mistake, that the deed of assignment, the notes given. an; wu -v;?^ ■'/v. ;^'W( w i'ilBW^i 'Ww'^ ^i ■M «(Ff jC^!r**^ ■ »^r •i^^. .®i*».» ^i*v:< '^cn. «WV' 1}^ wwWk 1^1 flT ^90^'%: WC'^^: '"■ "A 202 rONSIDKKATION ON SALK OK I'ATKNTS. WIIKN MAV UK IMI'KAUIIKO, Oil UKUOVKKKU HACK, 2^K Wlu'ic iiuh's liiitl boon j^ivi'H for tlio imicliasi' «»l' II patoiit-ri^lit, Miitl li:iil bi'CM piiiil :init'r tlic piiivhascr ii:i(l full know lodtxc or nu'iiiis of kiio\vIt'fj;t' of all tlu' farts in ivlatinii to tlio tratis- nctioii, J/i/tf, tlint hiu-Ii payiiu-iit. was Volimtarv, and that tluTi' rould not he H iTcovrry hack of the sum paiil ; al- 1li«)ugli tilt' i»ui'cliasor iniijlit liavo avoUl- vi\ |>ayiiu'Ml of tl\i' notes for want of oon- Kith-ralion, aSVi /*re no recovery could be had. Jlmd V. Stivois, 19 Wend., 4i;{. — Cowkn, J. ; N. Y., isns. 27. A sold to H the ri2;ht to use and vend a certain machine for two years, and took his note jmyablc at the end of that time. It was ajjfreed that if li coidd not make the machine jirolitable, lio should return it at the entl of the two years, with any avails he might have re- ceived, and <;ive up the assignment, and A should give up his note. 1> made a machine, and did not tind it profit able, and sold it to a third party, but never otFered to return it, or gave notice of his want of success, or ottered to siu-- render the assigmnent. Jftld, in an ac- tion on the note, that the question of consideration was one for the court, .and that B not having complied with the t4?rms of his agreement, could not .avoid the note. Pottle v. Thotna^^ 12 Conn., 665, .509, 572, 575. — Williams, Ch. J. ; Ct., 1838. 2H. Tn :ty action of debt on a bond, Ililtf, that it was adinissil)le with !i p|(>;i of in>n cut j'di'finn to show that it wiis without coiisiderfttion, aH being given for the assigmnent of a right to use and sell a certain pjilont-right, when the vender had no such patent-right, and had no jtowcr to sell it. McDoirtll v. MvnJit/i^ \ Wharton, JU-l. — CJuiso.v, Oh. J.; Pa., 1H30. 29. If .an improvement is now .ind valuable at the time of s.ale, the coiisiil- eration of a note given for the same camiot 1)0 impeached by showing tli.'il subsequent improvements liave render- ed such invention useless. The jiur- chaser takes tlie risk of any new dis- covory destroying its value. Jfanium V. Jlird, 22 Wend., 116.— Uko^son, J.; X. v., iH;t9. ao. Helief in equity will bo aflbrded .against the payment of notes given for the purchase of a patent, which is void; and money paid tluTCon m.iy be rv- covered back. Dorst v. Jh'ockinn/, 11 Ohio, 471. — lU'cnAKi), J.; Ohio, 1S4'2. IM. A note given for a patcTit-right for a machine that is not new or useful, is without consideration, and void. Jhin- bar V. Marden, 13 N. Ilamp., 317.— Woods, J.; N. II., 1842. 32. In an action on a note given for a patent-right, tlic plaintifV cannot re cover if the invention was not new o; useful, or if the patent conveyed no rijjht and was of no value, .althouuli both parties acted in good faith in gir- ing .and receiving tho note. Gcvjcr v. Cook, 3 Watts &, Serg., 270.— Slr- CKANT, J. ; Ta., 1842. 33. And the defendant m.ay shnv these facts thougli the note is a scaled note, and has been given for a balance due on a former note. Ibid., 270. 34. It is a good defence to an acaon CONSIDKIIATION ON SALK OK I'ATKNTS. 203 WIIF.M UkX VK lUI'RAOIIRD, OR HICOVKHKn UACK. to rcfoviT on nott'H j^ivoii on tho Half mill convoyiUH'o of ii icitcnf, and as to wliifli •'"' Hi'llt'i" <'laimt''l triu; inventor. MuUi- ken V. Lrico of a jiHtcnl ri^^lit woltl williout warranty or liaiid, iIh- plaintilVis ontitlod to rccovor if tho jiatont ho of any vahio. Vainj/ian T. l'ortromiHsory notes given for tiie purchase of a patent, that tho con- sideration exceeds the valin; of tho ar- ticle. The consideration may indotinitely exceed tho value of tho thing for which it is promised, and still the bargain Ht.and. JIardeati/ v. /Smith, 3 Ind., 41. — Pkickins, J.; Ind., iHril. 39. If tho patent, however, wan rep- resents conHiiliTation lor u piitent, tiio plaint ilV c;jntu)t rerovor, if the inv(Mition for wliii'li [latent was granted was not new anil usefnl, or if tlio patent an<|ll(■rltly patciiti'il, Ih not original, tlioiij^li it tlo«>s not HjK'ril'y wlifn it whm (•iiiictllcti, or liow, or ft)r what ilffcct. J)cl(i»i> V. Scott, (iilpiu, 400. — lloi'KO- Ho.v, J.; Ta., 1834. 8. A former and dt'tVctivj^ certified (•((|»y of a patent may I»e corrc'cted Ity iiiiotlier full ami eorreeted certified copy, ami the di'fective one (lannot alVect tiie Olio that is complete, lirooka v. liich- iicll, 3 McLean, 434. — M»;Lkan, J.; Ohio, IH44. 0. A transcript as to a n^newal of n patent need not Bet forth all tiic wtcps of proceedings connected therewith. niif., 4:tr). 10. It will 1)0 Hufficient, if it apjjcar that the Huliject was hefori the proper trihiuial, and that a decision was made in favor of a renewal, /fnil,, 435. U. Certified copies of assigiintenis of patents on record are competent evidence of the originals, and tho pro- duct ion of tho originals cannot bo com- pelled. Ibid., 43(5. 12. Papers or drawings on file in the Patent Ofiico are public records, and certified copies of them must be re- ceived in evidence when offered. If they are discordant, ono may destroy the effect of another ; but they need not concur in every j)articular. Kmer- son V. Ifogff, 2 Blatchf., 12. — Bktts, J.; N. Y., 1845. 13. If co{)ics of a patent aro errone- ous, the Commissioner of Patents has the power and ought to make them conform to the patent itself and to the record. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Wood. Sc Min., 200. — Woodijukv, J. ; Mass., 184G. 14. Certified copies of papers in the Patent Office must be received as prima fade evidence of the genuineness of the originals on file, and alisoliito ovU dence <»f the correctnesH of the copioN frtxn tho record. I^nrker \, //iiirorf/i^i .McLean, 371.— M. F.r.AN, J. ; III., JHlH. 1.'). The Commissioner of Patents, having in his care and custody tlie rec- ords 118 to patents, it iK his duty to give autheiiticatod copies to any person demanding the same, on payment of tho legal fees; and for his refusal, an aclimi will lit! jainst him. Hoj/ifi n v. liiirkc, 14 1I«)W., 683.— (iuiKK, J.; Sup. Ct., 1852., 10. Hut a d(>mand accotn))anied by rudeness ami insult, Ih not n legal de- mand. Ilnd., 5H3. 17. A subsecpieiit and proper demand cannot however bo refused on account of prior misconduct, or to enforce an ajtology. Ibid., 583. 18. A certifie(l copy from tho Patent ()ffic(! of ;in assignment recordiMl there- in will l»o received as jtri)aii faric evi- dence of tho genuinencKS of tho original assignment, and the production of tho original may be dispensed with. Parker V. Jiifjkr, MS,— Gkikk, J.; Pa., 1857. 19. A certified coj)y of an assignment of a patent, from tlio Patent Oftico of the United States, is prima facie evi- dence of tho genuineness of tho origi- nal. Xee V. Jilaiidy, MS. — McLean, Leavitt, JJ. ; Ohio, 1800. COPYRIGHT. A. O.v WHAT FOUNDED ; Nature OF Prop- erty IN ; WHAT INCLUDES 203 B. Subject Matter of 209 C Who entitled to take and hold. . 210 D. How acquired; Right to; how lost, 212 E. Second Term OP ; to whom meloxos, 214 F. Abandonment ok 215 O. Actions respectino 215 II. AfiUEEMENTS AS TO 2 "6 '^^H '»;< .softie ^■v* ' \0* *i**' %^x^ ^1. Bew. &-■••• Vww M^^'f?^: 308 COl'VUlCiHT, A. OM WHAT rOUNt)lt)|' VATVHIOr FUOfKUTr IN. ™f 5;.., I I. Ahhkinhknt ami TuANirKM ur 315 J« AlTllllM, Willi IK 31& l£» litlllK, Mil AT m 315 I«, COVIITH, ill ItlNIHCTKINH IN CAHKHor. . 2 I Tl HI, I.N.It-NI'HllNM IM IlKHI-KUT TO 3ir> Ufa I'rill.ll'ATIIIN, YQl\t IN 315 O, TllANNI.ATHIN, ClII'YIIIUIIT IN 315 I*. Violation or 315 A. <>N WHAT KOirMllKli; NaTUUK OK I'uoi'KUTV in; what incluokh. 1. ('ii|>yri;xl't w;»h ioniu'riy ooiisitU'r- cmI to 1m> tiitinilfil or. cotiiiiioii l:i\v, hut oaii iwiu' only lie viewed as part of our Htatutt! law. (Jlotfton v. S(onc, 2 I'uiiii', 883.— Thompson, J.; N. Y., 1828. 2. Till! jirivilc^t! of nil author to an oxclusiv*' Hiih! of his works for a limited iiuiiiher of years, although a nioiioiioly, IM not NO ill the odioiiH meaning of the term; hut is luit a proper reward for his lahiir provided liy law, and to whieh ho is as inueh entitled as to the exelu- Hivo enjoyment of any other kind of property. Jilnnt v. Patten^ 2 I'aino, 395._Tii<>Miw)V, J. ; N. v., 18!?8. ;{. In the United States, an author cjin have no exelusivo property or copy- right in his puhlished production except under the laws of Congross. Wheaton V. J*eUra, H I'et., 002.— McLean, J.; Sup. C(., 18;U. 4. The author of a literary composi- tion 1ms, at common law, no exclusive right to print and pul)lish it. Dudley \. Jfii/hew, 3 Corns., 12. — Stuono, J. ; N. v., 1849. 5. Copyright is an exclusive right to the multiplication of copies for the hen- etit of the author or his assigns, discon- nected from the plate, or any other phy/^ical existence. Stephens v. Cad>/, 14 How., 530. — Nelson, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1852. 6. Before publicition, .in author has the exclusive imssession of the ideas contained in his hook, and the coinhitia. tion of wordri to represent tlietii. Itm when lie has pulilishetl his hook, iiiii| given his thoughts, NenlitiKnls, kiiowl edge or inforiiuUioii to the world, lu' tan have no Uinger iin uxctuNivu poNsosnioii ill them. Stotee v. '/'/lonum, 2 Aiiut. Law Keg., 228.— (JiiiKK, J.; I'a., IHVI. 7. When an author Iiiin Hold his work, the only property which ho reserves tn himself, or which the law gives to liim, is the exclusive right to multiply tin- copies of that ]i:irticular <-oinhinatioii of cliaracterH which exhlhits to the eyes of another the ideaH intended to be con* veyed. This is what the law terms copy or copyright. Iffid., 228. 8. Tln're is no diHereiKU', ns respci'ts the character and tpiality of the right, between the right and property of an author at common law, and under the acts of Congress respecting copyrights, or what is an infringement of tlitiii. Ibid.., 228, 229. 9. A " cy" of ft book must be a transcrijit of the lani/iuKje in which the conceptions of thc> author are clullu'il; * of something [irinted and embodied in a tangible shape. The same conceptions clothed in another language cannot con- stitute the same composition. A trans- lation in no just sense is a copy or tran script of a book. Ibid., 229, 23 ) . 10. An author's exclusive jiroperty in a literary composition, or copyright, consists only in a right to multiply copies of his book, and enjoy the jirofits iliere- froin, and not in an exclusive right to his conceptions. Ibid., 229. 11. In questions of infringement of copyright, the inquiry ii* not whether the defendant h.is used the thoughts, conceptions, information, and discov- eries proinulg.ited by the original, but whether his composition may be con- ¥] C COPVIUUIIT, A, II. 809 WHAT IM. ■UBiRtrr MATTia or. Hi(lon'rk\ rr(|iilriiijj[ invuiition, learning, iiixl jiiti^int'iil, or only tk tiutro tntiiMcript of titv wholu or pnrtH of the original, witli iiiuru roluriiblo variatioiiM. \'i, T\w cnHo of Miller v. Diylor, 4 llurr, 'i311, hiiK llnully Mt'ttlcd tl»u i[wn- tioii OM to till) iiiituru of ilio |)i-o|u>rty wliicli ixi iiiillior htiH ill his works ; lunl it in, tli:it after imlilicatioii, his property coiiHists ill llio "rlKlit of oopy," wliirli (ti^iiilli'H " tlio »<''«' right of printing, tiiililishing, ftinl celling hin lituniry roiii- |)(i>iti()ii or hook ;'* not that ho has niicIi a nropt'rty in IiIh original foiici'ptioiis that hi> aloiii) 0:111 uno them in tho coin- position of II now work, or clolho them in a tlilVert'iit dresu by translation. //>/«/'//'•» ^'iosition, and publish and republish it in print. Keene v. W/ieatley, Amcr. Law liog., 44. — Cadwaix.vdkr, J.; Pa., 1800. 15. Tho ordinary definition of litera- ry properly as tho exclusive right to multiply cojneg is, for general purposes, too narrow, because the circulation of copies is not the only specific method in which the subject may be profitably nsed. Ibid.y 63. 10. Literary property may bo de- scribed as the right which entitles an 14 author and hiri nsidgnH to all the usi* niid profit of hiN ctmipoHition, to which no iiidepentlent right is, thntiigh any actor (MiiiHsioii on his or their part, vvkled in another person. Jltiil.^ OU. II, Hir»ijK«T MATrKR or. Si'o also AiiRiiKiKMKxr; CiiAnrs; C'oMi'ii.ATHiN ; DicnoNAUiKs; Dkama- Tn; ('oMrt)sirioNK; KxtuiAviNtis; Mai>h; Music; I'lan; Kkiouis; llKviiiWtt; TllAiNKI.ATION. 1. Tho objci't of tho nets of Con- grcHH securing to authors tho exclusivo right to their writings, wnn the promo- tion of Hcii'iut*. Clayton v. /Stone, 2 i'aine, 'i\i'2. — Tuomi-hon, J.^ N. Y., 1828. 2. Hut tin* torin science caiuiot with !iny propriety bo applied to a work of so fluctuating and fugitive a <'luiraeter as a newspaper or price current. Such a publication is not a book, the eofty- right of which can be iwcured under the acts of CongresM. Ibii/., .'IICJ, 'AQU. 3. A work may be tho subject of u copyright, if tho plan, arraugomeut and combination of its materials aro u«w, though tho materials may 1h> dntwn from many sources, but aro for tht' first time brought together in such plan, arrangement, and combination. Chray V. limsell, 1 Story, 17. — Sto-bv, J.; Mass., 18;Jt>. 4. The editor of an edition of Ad.tiin'8 Latin Grammar made alterations in,, adod additions to such work, and eollecte,., " 'is fu "^ no (oi'vuKJirr, IJ, c. ■VltJKCT MATTB* W WHO MAT TAKI» thorn ill llii'ir form iuhI nrriui^tMtu'iit, mill ciilitlot to ncitp} ri^lit accorilinj^ly. //><■riitlM will ctitiiti' till' iiitllior to II copyright, cvt'ii tlii)ii<.;li till' iii.'ilci'ials ari< iioi new. I'Jtiii I'rtiin V. Jiiu'lcfif :i {Stt»ry, 77H, — th'oKY, .1.; Mmm., 1845. 0. Kvtry author of a hook hiiM n ropy ri}.';ht in tlir plan, arr;iii;,'«'fiu'iit, ami ckiii- liiiialiiin of lii^/(/., 7«{). 7. Hi' who hy his own Mkill,Jiiilt,'tin'iif, aii'l lahoi* wi'iti'H a now work, ami iIoon not nioroly o<»py that of anothor, in on- tith'il to a copyright Ihoroin, if tin' variations ai\' not iiionly I'ornial aiwl Hhatlowy from oxisiin^ workM. J/tiif.., 781. H. Ami ho wlio ooiiHtriicts ft book liy a ni'W pl.'iii ami arranp'tnciit ami ooni- hinatioii of ojil matorials, has a title to a copyii'^ht, w liioh canmil ho ilispiacoil by showing; that Homo ]»art of his plan, or iiriiin^'onioiil, or ooinhination, has hoi'U m^fil hoforc. f/i!pyri^ht in a lahol, nn It i^ not a book >nthin the proviMlonii of dm statute. i'i>jlf\in v. /In/nfini, i M,-. Loan, r»l7. — .Ml f. KAN, .1.; Ind., l«|o. Ii., r)'.]. — \Vakiiin(ito\, .1. ; Pa., Ih'.'I. '.'. A "resident" nmler the eopyri'.'lil act of ih;i|, to bo I'litilled to a eopyri^jlit must bo ft pormamiit resident of tin country. A person temporarily rosiiliii;:f hero, even thoiij^h he has declared liin inlonlion of beeominij a citizen, cntiiiui take or hold a copyri^^hf . i'lirii/ v. t'ul- li>r, fiO Niles Keg., 20ii.— JIkitk, J.; N. Y., IH.'iO. n. (/iiptain INfarryatt, a fiubii'<'t ef Groat Ibitain, and an ollicer under tliai government, being temporarily in tiii, ooimlry, took the reipiiroil oath of his int«'ntion to become a citizen, and tluii too', out a copyright for one el' liis books, and assigned the same to the |iy i1i work it Ih iiili'iiili'il fur ix not print I'll, nor writlon, nor tlit* inuniiNcript prr- p.'iri'il for print iii){ uml pnlilirutinii, ul- llioii^h tliii iiot(<.<* or iiiiitci iikU iVoiii vliit'h lli«< Work or ))ook U to ix', !iiiil, iiri> tlirii in thtt lianiU of tli<> author, may liiivo a <'opyri^ht of tin* work at^t'rwanl prcpari-il iiikI foiiipoMctI, Ity attixiii^ it to \\\v titli'[»agu HO iJup(»HiU'>l; 'jioi'i/. (I. Whi'thi'r a nofico jiivoii In Notno of lhi> iicw^p.'iprrH so piililisliiii;^ Niich liiatttT \\^:\l till* author haiit parts copictl from oliUtr coinpoMitions without mate-rial (■haii){(>, and put t(>- j,'i'lhfr into one tnni' with only hli;;ht al- tciations or ailditioiis, is not, cnlithd to a (opyrif^ht for hu.. i'or. Jilhf>r, or not. AiVf/it V. tiittilil, 2 IMatehf., aoO. — Ni:ij»o>«, J. } N. Y., iHS'i, II. .\ii artlHl who i<« tMiiployi*d hy the I'niled StateH to eiigraxe a chart, of whieh tho original nnuiiiNrript wait th«i pr an artist was attached to an expedition sent out hy tlie giiNorn- ment, tut a ntaster*i< mate, and as such agreed to perform such dution iisrihoiild lie reipih'ed of liim, Itut his chief duly was to make Mkilehi's and drawinu'-* for the government, and he was infoi'iicil that all tilt* Hkdtches and thawing^ which should he in.'uh) hy any one were to bo ihe »\(lu>-ive property of the govern- ment, and that no one could appropriate them to his own use, and allerward >uch artist took out a copyright in his own name for the skclehes made hy liiin, III if, that lu( was not such an auth(»r and proprietor as to ho eiililled to an ex- eliisivo right in the sketches so made liy him. Jliiue v. Appklnus, 4 lilatchf',— Inokiiso'.i,, .1.; N. v., IH.')?. IM. Where a person, employed hy another as a performer and slag»'-mana- ger, agreed to write ji play, whicli wiw to he performed in his, the employer's, tlieatre as long as it should contiiiiie to draw goofl audiences, J/tld, thai tho person writing theilrama was the \no\t- er person to take out the coi»yright, and that the employer haid., 158. 3. The copy to be delivered to the secretary of state, appears to be de- signed for public purposes, and lias no connection with the copyright. Ibid., 158. 4. Under the copyright act of 1790, a copy of a book may be deposited with the department of state after the expiration of six months from the time of its publication, if not done before, and will avail from the time of its being depo ited. DabolVa Case, 1 Opin., 532. Wirt, Atty. Gen., 1822. 5. Under § S of the act of 1790, a proprietor can acquire no title to a copyright for the term of the first four- teen years, unless he shall deposit in the clerk's office a printed copy of the title of ti>e book. IJwcr v. Ct>xe, 4 Wash., 490. — Wa8H!N(iton, J. ; Pa., 1S24. 0. Under such act the condition upon whicli the proprietor is to be entitled to the benefit of the act, cannot b«' ex- tended to the requisition conlaiiit'd in the last sentence of that section, to pub- lish a copy of the recoi d of the tille, as prescribed therein. Ibid., 490. 7. If the title of an author depended upon the act of 1790, it would bo com- plete, provided he had deposited a printed copy of the title of i\\i\ book in the clerk's office, as directed by § ;i ; and the ])ublication of a copy of the same would only be necessary to enable him to sue for the forfeitures created by that section. Ibid., 490. 8. l<".t by the supplemental act of 1 802, no person can be entitled to the benefit of the act of 17C0, unless he shall, m addition to the requisites enjoined by that act, cause a copy of the record ro quired by that act to be published, to bo inserted in the title-page, or iu the next page. Ibid., 490. 9. The person, therefcre, claiming a copyright, before ho can be entitled to the benefits of the act of 1790, must perform the requisites required by the act of 1802 in addition to those pre- scribed in §§ 3 and 4 of the act of 1790, and must perform the whole. The act admits of no other construction. Ibid., 491. 10. The meaning of the act is as ii*it read, "the proprietor, before he shall be entitled to the benefit of the act of 1790, shall cause a copy of the record of the title to be published, and shall deliver a copy of the book to the secretary of state, as directed by §§ 3 and 4 of that act ; and shall also cause a copy of the said record to be inserted at full length iu the title-page," &c. Ibid., 491. '^1 COPYKIGIIT, D. 213 now AOQUIUEI); HOW U)BT. 11. Under the act of 1700, and par- ticularly when considored in connection M'ith the act uf 1 802, an author can ob. tain no cxcluHivo right in his work un. less he complies with tho requirements of §§ 3 and 4 of tho act of 1700, by causing a copy of tho record of his copyright to bo printed in tho news- papers, and delivering a copy of his work to tho scerotary of state. W?ie(tt- on V. Fekrs, 8 Pet., 064, 005.— Mu- Lkan, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1834. 12. Where a work consists of a num- ber of volumes, tho insertion of the rec- ord rin the page next following the title-pago of tho Jirst volume of the work, is a sufficient compliance with the statute. Dwiyht v. Appletotis, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 108.— Tiiomi'son, J.; N. Y., 1843. 13. The author may insert tho same record in another edition published in a different number of volumes, without impairing the copyright. IdiiL, 100. 14. The number of volumes in which it was stated tho work would be pub- lished, made no part of its title, and may be rejected as surplusage. Ibid.^ 100. 15. The delivery to the secretary of state of the first volume of the work within six months after its publication, and of the rest of tho volumes before the offence complained of is committed, or the action brought, is a sufficient compliance with tho law. Ibid., 100. 16. This case distinguished from Wneaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 501, as in that case it did not appear that the volumes had been delivered to the sec- retary of state, at any time. Ibid., 100. 17. The act of Congress of 1831, re- specting copyrights, embodies the pro- visions of the acts of 1700 and 1802 on the subject, and imposes on persons claiming the privilege of copyright tho sano duties and liabilities which attend* ed tho right under tiio prior statutes. linker v. Taylor, 2 lilatclif., 83.— IJkits, J.; N. Y., 1848. 18. Under such act, depositing tho title-page in tho proper clerk's office, publishing a notice according to tho act, and delivering a copy of tho book, are conditions the iterformanco of which is essential to the title. Ibid., 84. 10. Whcro tho title-page of a book was deposited in 1840, and tho notice of tho entry, inserted in the book, stated it to have been dt^posited in 1847, Held, that tho error created a fatal defect in the plaintiff's title. Ibid., 84. 20. Even .f tho error arose from mis- take, it will mako no difference as to the result. Ibid..^ 84. 21. Under § 4 a person is not entitled to any benefit, under the act, unless ho deposits the title-page before the pub- lication of his work. Iftid., 86. 22. Tho publication of a work, with- out having secured a copyright, is a dedication of it to tho public ; that hav- ing been done, any one may republish it. Bartlett v. Crittenden, 5 McLean, 37. — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1840. 23. By tho provisions of tho copy- right act of 1831, there are three pre- liminary steps requisite to the securing a valid copyright. 1. The deposit of a printed copy of the title before publica- tion with the clerk of the district court ; 2. Notice to the public, by printing in the place designated the fact of the en- try, in the form prescribed by tho stat- ute ; and 3. The deposit with the clerk of a copy of the book, &c., or musical composition, within three months from the date of publication. Jollie v. Jao ques, 1 Blatchf., 620. — Nelson, J; N. Y., 1850. ^k^;i .«—'«N/W" %^-\ ^f0^^Ww^:' :a.^ 214 roPYUKlIIT, D, E. j" n-t tli M ^\ '*««( II now AcynuKD; Jiow lost. BK(;fNM) TKIIM OF; TO WHOM DKLONOH. 24. § 10 of tho act of 1840, CHtablirtli- in^ the Smitlisonian IiiBtitution, re(|uirecl that uuthors HlK)iild withui tlirec inontlm from imhlioatioii deliver one copy of tlieu" books, «fec., to the librarian of that institution, and to the Congress libra- ry ; but such delivery is not a pre-rc- quisite to a title to tho copyright. Ibid., (Jl'O, 022. 2"). The ])rovision of the above act as 1() t lie delivery of a coi)y of a book to the lihrariiin of the Smithsonian Institution and cf Congress, is now re])C!Ued by § (,1" I hi! iu-t of 1H50, ehaj). 22. [En.] 20. Tntil all the things required by §4, 5, of the act of 1831 are done, the copyright is not secured ; but by taking the incipient step, a right is acquired, wiiich chancery will i)rotoct, until the other acts may be done. Pulte v. Der- by, 6 31cLeau, 332. — McLkax, J. ; Ohio, 1852. 27. Tho publication of an official re- port imder the direction of Congress, and for the benefit of the public, is a dedication of it, and of what is contain- ed in it, to the public, and any one may ropiiiit it. Heine v. Appletons, 4 Blatchf, — Ingeksoll, J.; N. Y., ISoT. 28. The provisions of § 5 of the copy- right act of 1831, as to the dejiosit of the title-page of the book to be copy- righted before publication, and the de- posit of a printed volume of the book within three months after publication, must be complied with, in order to en- able a party to avail himself of the pro- visions secured by that act. Struve v. Schwtdltr, 4 Blatchf. — Nblson, J. ; N.Y., 1857. 29. Where neither of these steps had been taken until nearly two years after the work had been published. Held, that the author could not have an injunction to protect his alleged copyright. Ibid. 30. The record from the clerk's ollioe, made in the form ))res('ribed by {J 4 of the act of 1831, or of the depositing of a title-page, is/^r/may't/f/eevidt^iice that a i»rii'ted title was deposited. Jioherts V. Mi/ern, 13 Mo. Law llep., 398.— Spuaguk, J.; Mass., 1800. 31. After such title-page has been Jo- posited, the author can maintain an ac- tion for an infringement or violation of his right, even though tho work may not have been published, or the printed copy deposited. Ibid., 398. 32. Under the statute, a copy of the book must bo deposited within three months after its j^ublication ; but the acting or roprosenting a play is not such a publication as is meant by the statute. Ibid., 308. 33. The mere adoption of the meas- ures, as depositing a title-i)age, by which a copyright may be secured, has no such eftect, unless their adoption has been followed or attended by an actual })uh- lication in i)rint. Keeite v. Wheatley, 9 Amer. Law Reg., 44. — Cadwallauji:e, J.; Pa., 1800. E. Renewed ok second Term op; to "WHOM BELONGS. 1. Where A employed B to compile a school book, and agreed to p.ay him $500, and B conveyed to A the " coin- right," Held, that only the usual copy- right of fourteen years, then existing or taken out, passed under the contract. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 Wood. & Min., 42, 43. — vVoODuuRY, J. ; Mfiss., 1840. 2. Such an assignment is to be refer- red to what was then in existence, and not to any future contingency. Ihid,, 43, 45. 3. The extension of a copyright, by the coj^yright acts of 1790 aud 1831, it COPYHIGIIT, F-P.— CORPORATIONS. 21/ COUronATIONB, RIUIIT8 AKD UABILITIKB OF, AS TO PATENTS. is given to the uutlior alone, or to others only who purchase it from him. Ibid.^ 44. 4. An Jis.signmont of a "copyright" Bhoiiltl not by construction bo extended beyond tlio first term, unless it seems to be actually so meant by the author, and to include any future contingency. Ibid., 44. 6. Otherwis-J, if the contract of sale or assigmnent uses language looking beyond the existing copyright, such as referring to uU the interest in the nvat- ter, or to the ma7iuscrij>t or book itself, or using some other expression more conipr'jlu'nsive than the word "copy- right." I/nd., 45. 0. Tlie taking out a second term of a copyright is not like the strengthening of a defective title, but rather like a new interest obtained after the general interest had expired. Ibid., 46. 7. A claim under a renewal term ne- cessarily involves the validity of the risht under the first as well as the sec- end term. W/ieaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 063.— McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1834. F. Abandonment of. See Abandonment, A. G, Actions respecting. See Actions, A. H. Agreements, as to. See Agreements, A. I. Assignment and Transfer of. See Assignee, A. ; Assignment, A, C. J. Author, wuo is. See A'JTHOR. K. Rook, wuat is. See Bock. li. Courts, Jurisdiction in Cases op. See Courts, A. M, Injunctions, in Respect to. See Injunctions, A. IfS, PUBUCATION, WHAT IS. See Publication. O. Translation, Copyright in. Seo Translation. P. Violation of. Seo Infringement, A. CORPORATIONS. 1. Though, as a general rule, corpo rations ure not liable to be sued in ac tions of tort, it does not follow that they may not be sued in actions on the case for injuries done to the rights of others, notwithstanding the plea is, not guilty. ITneass v. Schuylkill Hank, 4 Wash., 14. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1820. 2. Therefore, when a corporate body, acting in its corporate character, directs an act to be done which infringes the rights of another, as the using of bis hivention, they may be sued in an ao- •'11 llll<' I: u. :=!s#w--<; 74>* ^^m Vta*< , 'h-^TTT^'^ m ' *rf*!'(! ■•iWiW'w'^ ••■ w ■-'■ ^L vii^J- MW^^ ::„._., ^i- .Mwwv 210 COItPOUATIONS. toi'^W •m^'s. '^ KI0HT8 ANU LIADIUTIES OK, AH TO PATENT.". '«l;|i Bter.;; r:4 ' i' '•tt ^*Uf] fife?:; \m I ' ***HI|: V':'...;.! Fl9f!^ y ,-, »' Ik kv. :■■■'<, I III? ■Wii.i. tion on the case for such iiiA-ingcnicnt. Ibiil, 14. 3. A corporation chartered under the laws of a state, for the purpose of car- ryijig on manufactures by means of a particular invention, has, independently of any general act giving to corpora- tions the right to hold personal estate, power to ])urchase the patent for the invention, for the working of Avhich it was chartered. libotch, Gun-Stock Turn. lac. v. Warner, 1 iJlatchf., 277. — Xki.son, J., Ct., 1840 4. JJy the common law, corporations have a right to j)in*chase and hold prop- erty 80 far as may be necessary to carry into execution the purposes and objects for which they are created. Il)id., 277. 5. A corporate body created by the laws of one state, has no corpor.ite ex- istence beyond the limits of the territo- ry within which the law creating it can operate, and is not such a person as can be considered an inhabitant of any dis- trict, 60 as to be served with process. Dat/ V. Neioark I. R. Co., 1 Blatchf , C32.— Nelsox, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 0. Where, therefore, the defendants were a corporation created by the laws of New Jersey, but had a store in the city of New York, and a process of at- tachment under the laws of ' w York was commenced against and levied upon its property in New York, and the sum- mons was also served upon the presi- dent of the company Avho was casually in New York, Held, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the action. Ibid., 033, 034. 7. Under § 11 of the judiciary act of 1789, the Circuit Courts have no juris- diction in suits instituted against foreign corporations, even in cases where the state practice, if adopted by them, would authorize the institution of such suits by attachment of their go )dc found within their jurisdiction. Ibid., 034. 8. The directors of a marufaeturiri'* corpoi-ation, who manage and superin- tend its business, and under whose di- rection it manufactures and sells articles which arc an infringement of a patent and its agents who conduct its business of selling such articles, avo responsible for such infringement, and will be re- strained by injunction. Goodyear and N. K. Car- Spring Co. v, Phdps, 3 lilatclif., 92.— Xklson, J. ; N. Y., 1853. 9. A railroad corporation, created by ooo state, and owning a road within that state, is liable to an action for the use of a patented improvement on cars run on that road, though another cor- poration, created by another state, held the stock, furnished and worked tlio road, but charged to the first corpora- tion the expense of such outlays, and credited it with the earnings. York tb 3Id. II. li. Co. V. Winans, 1 7 IIow., 40. — Campbell, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 1 0. A corporation is liable in damages for infringing a patent, if the patented machines are procured by such corpora- tion, and are used by those employed or paid by it. Ransom v. Mayor, t&c, of New York, MS.— Hall, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 11. A corporation acts only by those Avho are in its employ. Where one in the employ of a corporation, in the business oC his employment, does an act for their benefit, and which they adopt and approve and take advantage of, the corporation will be deemed to have au- thorized the act, and will be bound by it as if expressly authorized. Poppen- heusen v. JY. Y. G. P. Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. — Inoersoll, J.; N. Y., 1858. 12. The manufacture of articles in violation of a patent, by an agent of a %t COSTS IN PATENT SUITS. 917 WIIRK COHTM KKCOVERAIILK; WIUT TAXAIII.8. corporation, luul tho sale of such articles by ami lor tlio ])cii(>fit of Hiich corpora- tion, makes tlu'in liable for tho infringe- nu'nt. Ibid. 13. The fact that as between them- selves parties aro connected together as the stockholders, managers, and servants of a corporation, will not exempt them from being enjoined, or being liable to an action for infringement. Po^ipeti- heusen v. Falke^ MS.— Suipman, J.; N. y., 1861. COSTS IN PATENT SUITS. 1. At common law a plaintiff was not entitled to costs in any case ; and the statute of Gloucester giving costs gave them only in cases Avherc damages were recoverable at common law. Kneass v. Schuykill Hank, 4 Wash., 107. — Washington, J.; Pa., 182!. 2. It is the act of Congress alone which gives an inventor a right of property in the subject of his invention, consequently an action for an infringe- ment of a patent is not a case in which damages could have been recovered at common law. Ibid., 107. 3. Under § 20 of the judicary act of 1789, if a plaintiff recovers less than five hundred dollars, he cannot recover coe:^'« ; but at the discretion of the court may be adjudged to pay them. Ibid., 107. 4. In an action for an infringement of a patent the plaintiff recovered three cents damages, and at a subsequent term of the court obtained a rule upon the defendants to show cause why the costs should not be trebled. The de- fendants retorted by a rule on the plain- tiffs to show cause why the judgment should not I'e entered without costs. Tho coiirt discharged tho first rule and made the second absolute. Ibid,, 107. fi. A plaintiff is not entitled to re- cover costs for an infringement of a patent, as to which a disclaimer is filed, unless such disclaimer is filed before suit brought, even if he proves an in- fringement of a part of tho invention not disclaimed. Heed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 000. — Stouy, J.; Mass., 1841. 6. Though tho deposition of a wit- ness residing more than ono hundred miles from tho place of trial has been taken, tho witness may be produced on the trial, and if so produced full costs of his personal travel and attendance will be allow I'll in the costs. Prouty v. Eugyles, 2 Story, 200. — Story, J. ; JNIass., 1842. 7. Postage paid for tho transmission of a commission to take testimony should be allowed as part of the costs. Ibid.y 202. 8. Where a demurrer could have been taken to a bill in equity, but the defendants instead of demurring filed an answer, and testimony was taken and tho bill was dismissed upon the merits, because the plaintiff did not show a sufficient title, Held, that the defendants were not entitled to costs. Brooks v. By am, 2 Story, 553. — Story, J.; Mass., 1843. 9. Costs in equity are altogether in the discretion of the court, but this dis- cretion is to be a sound one, exercised on principle, and with a reference to the general rules of practice. Ibid.y 553, 554. 10. Where a bill was dismissed on the merits, each party to bear his own costs, but a record had been printed under tho order of the court. Held, that the costs of the printing such record mm>. -■^^^ mm '■'■i^T '^'«»W;Lh.J 1 ^SmSSSU^^-'-^' m^^^^kt^'- 'W*'-'V; 218 COSTS IN PATKNT SIl'I'S. WIIKN KK«'()VKU,VIII.K; WIIAI TA.XAIII.K, 'j^ <: '*»*«K» ^■\ R'"* Wf -, m--,^ was ti) Itc ('(iiiiilly (Uvitlc'il Itotwci-n (!u> |»iUlU'H. //'/■">4. II. In the lii'Ml ciiviiit llio plalntitl' ill |»!i<{t'iit casi's is tu»t ri>«|iiirt>(l to ^ivi' hcfiirily Tor i-osts. )K<>0(/(r(>;M v. ;S/uniii>ri:itt'ly a matter of cost ratlii-r than (laiiiau;rs aini t'XjK'iisos in preparing a I'aiiso. J/iit/unr Mill., 71. — WooDnuitv, J.J ^Mass., 181(1. lU. If a I'aso is siispt'iuK'tl or j)ost- j)oiu'il liy MLjit'lMiiciit, and int by order of foiMt, e\ei']tt to I'arry sucli a^ri'i'iufiil into olU'i'l, till' witiii'ssi'H will not be al- lowed anotliiT travel fee, unless sueli is the aj4;rei'nieiit, but tlu-ir eoiiliiiued al- teiidauee until di.-^eharjjed will bo allow- ed. Jhnf., 72. 14. Ill the courts -if the United States witnesses are eiitilK'd to (ravel "from the places of their abode" by the act of Congress (act of 17!>i), ch. !>, § 0, vol. 1 Stat, at Large, p. (i-O), though beyond the line of the state. Ihhl., 7;t. 1."). Cojties of assignments, showing plaintilV's interest, and produced ami obtained by the defendant, are taxable in defendant's costs, as they are compe- tent and juoper evidence, and the j)lain- tilfis not bound to juodiiee thei.i, nor is the deleudunt bound to ask plainlilV's admission to such assignment. Il/ld., 74. 16. But a copy of the plaintilf's pat- ent, procured l»y the defendant, is not taxable, as the ])laintilf is bound by law to oiler it in evideuce. IbiiL, 74. 17. In e«piity, ait a general rule, comIk ari' allowi'>l to the prevailing party. What prevails by law is presumed to he moral, and eonscieiitioiiH, and eqiiitalilr. Ibit if peculiar circiinistances, of -in eipiitabi,' churacter, exist agiiinst a party, (hey m;iy be withheld ; but tlio iiuideii to show (liesi) peculiar cir- cunistances is on the party asserting them. J/iirn/ v. >?( jvv/.v, ;j Wood. A .Mill., .(2, y;». — Woonm nv, J.; Alass., IS. If a long defence is juit in by a respondent and fails, and the bill is dis- misst (1 on othi'r grounds, he will not ho ;ilh>wed costs. And if the action wa« not for any wrong of the defendant, but to settle the title of the plaiiililV, and he luis a decree, he will have no costs as against the defendant. //>/u/., ;)4. 'JO. Where the course of the defend- ant w:is not Avholly favorable to his claims in eiiuity, only ilisbursementsand the usual counsel fee were allowed, ami he was not permitted to tax the travel and atteiulance of witnesses, who were in attendance in an action at law, at the same tcriii, bi'twecn (he same parties. nn(/., ;Hi, 37. 21. Where a patent is too broad, the jilaiiitiif in an action for iiifringenient, though he may recover judgnieiit, is not entitled to costs against the defciul- ant, unless a disclaimer shall have been filed before the conunencement of tho suit. But the question of damages, aud COUNSKL I'KKS. iiiiO WIIKTIIRH Hlt'UVKIIAIII.K \H HAMAdCM. till' |Mi\vci' of li.o court to iiu'i'u.'iHo tlio ,i'nli('l, rfinuin the Hiitiic iiH ircnsis wcit iilliiwnl. (iiiyon V. tirrnUy I IHahlii'., 21:., -Mt).— Nki.son, .1.; N. Y., 1H47. 2'J. \Vlit'n» 11 |>iilctit ('.ontuiiiN Ht'vt'iul clitiiiis lioil '''*' invention uniltracfd liy dill' is not iifw, or is iisi-K'hh, IIu' |i!ilt'ii tir iiii'l''!' >5>5 V iiixl <> «•'" ll>«' act of ls;iV iiiav Ntill iiiiiiiitaiii an ad ion for nii in tViiiK^'iiit'nt, altlioiif^h lie did not, lid'orc tlic cDnniH'nci'nicnt of llio suit, niaUc a (lisclainuT H— Nki,kon,.I.; N. V., iHr.l. '.';). If, in \\w proi^rcsH of liic trial, it tiiniHoiit that adiHclainuM' ou;^lil to Imvc iiccn made as to part of wliat is clairncil, the |iluintilf may still recover, but will not he cnlitled lo costn. [hiil., \[)H, '1\, Where a jud^^inent is «'nteri'd up without the costs having lieon taxed and inserted in it, it is proper for the court, at a suhseipuuit t(!rin, to have the costs taxed and entered nnin' f>r<> 'xiic asupart of the original Judgment. Sizir \. M'Dii/, 10 How., lo;}.— Tanhy, Ch. J.; Sup. tn., 185.3. 2;'). ITnder i^ 5) of Dw act of 1R;j7, in an action for infringement, the plaintilf is not entitled to recover costs upon a judgment in his favor, if he has claimed anything in his patent, of whicOi he was not the hrst anV.v/»r, MS.— (iKiKK, J.; J*a., 1857. COUNSEL UKKS IN I'ATKNT suns. 1. Counsel fees and expenses of wit- nesses, beyond tin; taxable costs, are not to be (ujnsidered as items of actual damage. (So held on the authority of Arviwihal V. Wistmffn, :» Dall., 300.) Wliittemore\. ijutttr, 1 (iail., 4;U, 433. — St(.hiv, J. ; Mass., 18i;{. 2. The Jury are at libtnty, if they see tit, to allow a plaintiil' as part of his " actual damagcfs," any expc-nditure for counsel fees, or other charges, which were nectcssiirily incurred to vindicate the rights derived under his patent, and which are not taxable in the bill of costs. Jiuston Mcmnf. Co. v. J^'ixke, 2 Mas., 122.— Stoky, J. ; ]\Iass., IH'JU. (So held after a fuller .and more careful examination of the case of Arcarnfjal v. Wisenum, and overruling the decision in Whitternore v. Cutter.) [IJut see 2V)St 3, 5, 8-11. J 3. Li an action of infringement, the Jury nuiy allow the plaintiffiu damages, ^r'^wr!*! i LA t ^1, h «i{ii 220 COURTS, A. JVKiaMCTION AH TO COPTBKIUTB AMD MAHVBCBITTS. Iiifl nctiiiil coHtH, which inchuie ronHon- uble cotiiiNcl foi-H, UH wi>ll iiH liny tuxabli* coMtH \u' had paid in conaoquoitcu of thu violation of dufuiKlant. Allen v. JJlunt, 2 Wood. & Min., 140. — WooDiiuitv, J. ; MaHH., IHIO. 4. Thu "actual damages" Hustainod indiide all noccHHary and proper expen- HCH in j>rotcctiiig one's viohitod rights. Tlioiigh tiicy Hliould not inchido " smart- money," tliey may well embrace every thing really suffered by the wrong. Ibid., 146, 147. 6. CounHel fees, and other expendi- tures, beyond or in addition to those taxable, cannot bo allowed by the jury as a part of the actual damages sustained by a plaintiff in an actio ii for an in- fringement of a patent. Stimpaon v. The Jiailroads, 1 Wall, Jr., 100, 109.— GuiKK, J. ; Pa., 1847. 6. In no case is the degree of the defendant's delinquency to be measured by the expenses of the plaintiff in pros- ecuting his suit. Ibid., 170. 7. Where the circumstances of in- fi-ingcment are of an aggravated char- acter, what are sometimes called vin- dictive damages, which would include counsel fees, and something more by way of example, to deter others from doing the same thing, may be given. Parker v. Corbin, 4 McLean, 463. — McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1848. 8. In the second circuit the jury are confined to the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, and cannot include as a part of his damages his expenses and counsel fees. Blanch. Gun-Stock Mantif. Co. V. Warner, 1 Blatchf., 272 (note). — Nelson, J.; Ct., 1846. 9. Expenses and counsel fees are not to be included in the verdict as actual damages. Simpson v. Leipcr, 2 Whar. Dig., 414.— Grier, J.; Pa., 1848. 10. Tlio jury arc to give compciiHa- tory damages, such as will iniU-nuiity the plaintiff for the injuries he has di- rectly HUHtain(>d, but tht>y cannot include the expenses of litigation in tluir ver- dict. I'arkcr v. Ilulmc, 7 West. Law Jour., 420.— Kank, J.; Pa., 1840. 1 1 . Counsel fees are not a proper ele- ment for theconsiderationof thejiiry in the estinuUion of damages, in actions for the infringement of a imtenl. 7lt«(! V. Ifuntington, 23 How., 8. — Cliffobi), J.; Sup. Ct., 1859. COUJITS, JURISDICTION OF. A, In RKsrEOT to CoPYRiaaTs and Man- CSCHU'TS 220 B. In Respect to Paiknts. 1. Supreme Court, United States. . 222 2. Circuit Courts, United States. . . 223 3. District Courts, U. S., under acts of 1790 and 1793 227 4. State Courts 228 C3, AuTuouiTY or Decisions of, in other Courts 230 A« In Respect to Copyrights and Manuscripts. See also Actions, A.; Equity, A.; Ix- JUNCTIONS, A.; Letters ; Manuscku'ts. 1. At common law, the author of a manuscript may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or who by improperly obtaining a copy endea- vors to realize a profit from its publica- tion. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet., 657. — McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1834. 2. And there can be no doubt that the rights of an assignee of such manu- script would be protected by a Court of Chancery. Ibid., 661. 3. Where a wrong has been commit- *'^''%| COUUTS, A. Ml JURMOIOTION AS TO OOPTRIUiiTI AND MAWMMPTt. ted in roHpPi't to ft lilcriiry work, but tlio liill author, or tlio violiition of any copy- right Hocurod, but only iiskM nn account, ri'drcsH cannot bo Hoii^ht in n court of equity, but the party niUHt proceed at I.'tw for (luiiiam'H. Monk v. Harihty \\ KJw. Ch., 110, ni.-->JcCouN, V. Ch.; N.Y., lH:n. 4. Under tho nets of IVOO and 1810, KN to patents and copyrij^lits, tho own- ers of copyrightM and i)atcnt8 do not have redress or relief in any cases wlieie thoy could not before have had relief in soTiie court eitlier of ecpiity or law. Pio-jyont V, Fowle, 2 Wood. «fc Min., 27.— Woyi>»tJUY,J. ; Mass., 1846. 5. These acts merely enabled tlieni to prosecute such claims in tho Circuit Court of tho United States uu they legally had done before, but without going to tho state tribunals ; the public interest required a uniform construction to be placed by one tribunal on all im- portant questions, qu(!stions connected with rights so held. Ibid.^ 27. 0. At common law, independently of the statute, tho author of a manuscript might obtain redress against one who had surreptitiously gained possession of it. Bartktt v. Crittenden, 4 McLean, 301.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1847. 7. On general equitable principles, relief may also be given, under like cir- cumstances, by a court of chancery. lUd., 301. 8. At common law, an author may maintain an action for tho damages which he might sustain by his manu- script being surreptitiously printed by others. Hoyt v. McKemiey 3 Barb. Ch., 323.— Walwobth, Chan.; N. Y., 1848. 9. The common law protects the right of ail author to his inaniiscript only. liartktt V. (Jrittrndcn, ft McLean, 38. — McLkan, .1.; Ohio, IH41). 10. Hut j} of tho copyright act of 1H31 also protects such right. I/jid., 38. 11. In ft suit under tho copyright acts, the plaint it)' must make out a title to 8U0 under his copyright. The court cannot interfere to prevent the use of a work in fraud of tho ]daiiitifV, upon principles relating to the good- will of trades. Jollic v. Jiujuca, 1 Blatchf., 027. —Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 12. A suit arising out of an agree- mcnt as to tho publication of a manu- script, and to determino the rights of the parties under it, is not a suit under tho copyright laws, of which tho Cir- cuit Court has jurisdiction by reason of subject matter. Pulte v. Dcrhy, 5 McLean, 330.— MoLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1852. 13. Tho act of February 15, 1810, so far as it gave cognizance to the courts of tho United States in cases of copy- rights, still remains in force, and is tho only law conferring equitable juris- diction on these courts in such cases ; § 9 of the act of 1831 protects manu- scripts only. Stephens v. Oladding, 1 7 IIow., 455. — CuitTis, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 14. The equity jurisdiction of such courts, as to copyrights, docs not ex- tend to tho adjudication of forfeitures ; a decree therefore cannot bo entered for the penalties incurred for a violation of a copyright. Ibid., 455. 16. The jurisdiction of tho federal courts, under tho acts of Congress, re- specting copyrights, has not taken away or diminished the original juris- diction, which before such acts tho state courts exercised, except where the ju- risdiction was made exclusive in express y^"'^- »••'«*.;:. •***»!• mi it» fSi V '^::i > ■"-ill tcriiH, or l»y (Jii* iH'ct'smiry coimtnii'tloii of till' rfilt'i'iil (■oiiHtitiitioii. W'tnilmi/ \. Jmiif, 4 DiuT, a«;i.— Dl'ku, J.; N. V., man. Id. Wlicro fin iwHlpfnrtUMit of ii play ;,'a\(' to tlu< iiNxigtuH' the t'XfliiHivt' \\\i\\\ to n'proMciit tint Niiiitt' williiii » iHirtuiii territory for ii iixcil ptM-iod «)f time, and only tlio titl(*-p(i;{u of Hurit play liad biTM filcil, l)iit no priiilcil copy had l)<>t>n dt'piixiti'd, on l>ill fiiod by tlir assi;j;ni'c to pnttoct IiIh right, Jfelif, that the coml liad jnriHdi(!tion. Jiohrrtu v. My tr«, i:i Mo. \m\v Ilcp., ion, 401.— Si'UAoiTK, .1.; MasM., IHOO. [But hio l>uat -J I.] 17. ITndor the act of CongroMH ffivinu; to the (.'ircult C'oiirtH coj^nizanco of caMi-n nrisinjj; iiinh'r the laws of llu« I'nited St.'iti'M, j^riintinji toaiilliors tlieexcliisivt' right to their writings, tho citizenship of till! ])artieH litigant is inunatorial. JCei'Hi' V. ]\7iii/l/ii/, Amer. fi.iw IJeg., 44.— C.\i)WAi,i..\i>i:i{, J.; Ta., IHOO. IH. And nnder the statutes which confer and regnlate >'!f//its of liteniry proprietorship, the citizenship of such ]»:irties is also uniniportant. It is sufli- cient if the complainant is u resident of the United States. Ibid, 45. 10. Tho act of 1831, § 0, giving re- dress for the unaiithorizei] ^»/v'//^///(/ or pnhlinhiii(f of thdiiKseriptH, gives no re- dress for an nnaiithorizud thejitric.'il lepresentation of a play. Tho word puhlish inean.s pnblish in print. Ibid., 45. 20. Tho only statnto which affords redress for unauthorized theatrical rep- resentations is tho act of August 18, 185(5. IJtit this applies only to cases in ■which copyright is eft'ectualiy secured under the act of 1831. Ibid., 45. 21. Where a play had never been Itrinted, and consequently a copy there- of «'ould not be posiled with th(>rli>r|( within the time prts«-ril»ed uftrr its /o/A. lii'iiliuii, but all the other Htatntory k qiiirementM hud been conipliod with /fild, that jurisdi<*tion for ai unauthor i/i'd pulilication could not be niaint lin. ed uihler such act :>_ '2'2. Hut Jurisdiction of hucIi a cis,. may be niaiiilained if the parties, pliin. till' imd di'Tcndaiit, :ire residents of dif. ferent states, or if tho plaint ill" \n jn, alien. Ibid., 40, 4U. n. Tv Ui:si'ic«T TO Patknih. 1. Supreme Court United titaka. See nine Appkalh, A.; Uiix of Ex* (KiTioxs; Wrtrr ok Kuiioii. 1. The question whether one niacliitio is substantially like another is ono of fact, and cannot be certified to the Sii- |>reme CJourt nnder )< (1 of the act (if 1H02, eh. ;n. Such act applies otilv to (piestions of law. Wllnon v. liannm, H How., 202.— Tankv, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1H40. 2. Where the principles governing a patent cause have been settled by this court, it will (b'cline to hear an nrgunient u]>on techiiic.nl «pu'stions of pleadiiu^ arising in another case, mider the same patent, and the! ruling in nsptvt to which would have no influence ujion the ultimate decision of the case. Smith V. El If. 15 How., 142.— Tamov, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1K53. ;}. An objection not taken before tlic court below cannot bo taken before tho Suitrenic Court on appeal. Kinsman V. l\irh'/i>(r,9t, 18 How., 295. — Crims, J.; Sup. Ct., 1855. 4. Where a bill is filed to enforce the specific performance of a contract in re- ill tliri'tirk tU'r \l* pub- latiiliiry n plu''! with, I iiii:iMtlii llpnil tlio Inst'. Smith ICY, C'li. J.; In licforc tlie In liolnrc the Kiiifman |5.— ClKTIS, (■lift lire the liitruft ill ro- CULltTsl, 11. 2. fSS jURWiHonoN Ai TO f.^Tuim oinoviT ooimm littioii tn a |>ati>tit, llio Siiprciiii' (! appt'Miitu jiii'iitili('tit)ii, itnh'MH thi> iii;ittcr ill ciiiiiroviTMy «'\ri('(N lh('\aliu' III' t>V<> tlinilHailil ilnllai'H. Ilioirn v. S/iini)iini, '20 Ilitvv., 50, 67. — Tankv, Cli. .r.; Slip. Ct., lHft7. .1, 'Ilic court may, liowovtT, hiwftilly i>xri«'is(' itH jiirisilii'tinii when a far li'«-t aiiiiMiiit is in ilispiilL', if a party is |i!'o- I't'otlinj; ill law or I'lpiity for tin- iiifriiij.'f- iiH'iit of a patnit-ri^lit tt» wliifh lio chiiiiiH to III' ftititlcil Ifit'if,, .Ml. II. i'lic aiiioiiiit of tli*< penalty in a Ixiiiil taken on nil injiinetion in the iDiirt below cannot bo referred to to give jurisdiction. //u'i, I I'ainu, 4h. — Livi.susrox, J.; X. Y., 1811. 2. If jurisdi(rtion of cases "arising; uiiilor the laws of the ITnited States" lie not conferri'd on these courts by an act of Congress, they cannot take cog- niz-ince of them. Ibid, 60. 3. By the judiciary act of 1789 the Ciivuit Courts were not clo'ihed with ciiuity powers in actions between citi- zoiis of the same state ; .and under the act of 1800 they were given jurisdiction in jiatont cases only in actions on the case. On a bill liled to restrain the in- frinKoincnt of n patoni, wheru all thu partitiri wuro citi/ciiM of the Hamu utatc, ///, that the court could imt take co|^. ni/.ance uf hiicIi a case, and that the bill must be disiiiisMed. //>!ir ^/((; hifi'tii'ji'iinnt of a patent-right ; as by those acts in swh iirtions the court can dccl.'ire the patent void. Jiurrall v. Jewdt, 2 Taige, 145. — Walwouth, Ch. ; X. V., l.s:lo. 8. l»ut the jurisdi(;tiou conferred up- on such courts by the net of 1810, " in suits both at law and equity arising un- der the ji.ateiit laws," is not, either in terms or by necessary implicatimi, ren- dered exclusive ns to all actions in ref- erence to patents. //•/'/., II'), 1 KJ. 9. A Circuit Court in a civil suit can- not declare a patent void exc-p: fur tho f^^IlM- I III v^*r. !»S8Si^^ %i, -■ • WWW^' TjT C-WUWwo .(MC^V % '*^%%* it- I k v4 v.* 4 t'onnx ». t. 4VlliMIMI'IH*H HH to l'»>».S)N. itHilir nil HtN omiNi* N|M'i'illi'i| ill ){ ii of till' ni'i nf 170:1. ir till' |iiili'iil ix ilt'li'i iivi> tor liny nllifr I'liiiNi' till' \i Ciiviiil ('oiirlN of llio riiiliil Klnh'H liit\ o o!k«>hiNivi> I'o^iiiyiMii'c of Miiil m ill oi|iiili, t-i'liili\i< lo iiiliMloiin^ |iii|«r- Mtivo or voiil, i>itliirt/i, H l'iu>ji', i;m. VVAi.Wktitni, tli.; N.V., IH40. M . \V hi'lluT Kiii'h oouiin Imvo I'solii kI\i' Jiiri'*«li» lion ol' omtv «'»««> in wliioli n rt>{lil iitiilrr llio piitoiit Iuun niiglil I'oino in i|iH'!«lion rollali'inlly ; or in o;»j!4 I'Xivpl wln(»- Miily lu' «'\>'lusiM> ; 71.07/. //»/(/., l.'U. I'J. 'I'lu' Ciiouil I'oinis I'UM' no jniii* iliotion of lui iii'tion. m o (Mifon'o thi< n|Hvifu I'xiviUion of m t'onlriuM roj*|u'i'l ill iiij; u |>!\ti'nt, whi'ro iho |i;ntii'.H ino I'il if I'll!* of tho Niuiio Ntnto ; but wlioro tiio phiintitVs not up » rit^ht nmU'r a p.'ttoni, mill a]lo)!i< that tho . ofciHiir.i nr«> intViu^iiii;, rilizi'iiship will no; ■ iiit jurif<>liotion. llrook.i v. .SVo/Ay, H Mo- l.oan. .^•.^^.- Ml Lk.\: 01 no, l.'^l.' ]9, Hilt whoi.' tho court has ohtaiufil jurisiHotion on tho jjrouuil of inlViiiiro- nionl, it ni«y ihon lUviiio othor mat tors whii'h o\' thomsolvof* wouhl not alVord jjrouiui for tho original oxoroiso of juris- iliotion. IN. 14. Tn.lor g 17 of tho act of ISJUl, tho juvisiiiotion .ns to suhjoot mnttor of tlio (.'irouit Court iloos not oxtiMul to a bill in oquity lilod lor tho spooilio pcrfonnjmoo of a contract to tn.nst'or a imtiMit, tho jitr|«i|ii'iion of Niii'h I'oiir'* lioiiitt oonlliii'il lo iiolioiiN niiili'r iIm< |iitt. I'lil liiy/i uniiiliii^ or •'unllnninK iigliin lo iiitoiilorM. Siitnttlh \. I'ltti'trt, \ Woo.l. »1. Mill., 117. — WooimiiHV, J. J in. If Hiich II hill iM tilt')! iii;iiiiis|, Novoral ili'foiiiliiniN, noiiio of Hhom iim ri'HiilonlN of Iho nhiiio Ntillo willi ||||i I'oMipliiiniintN, ihi' hill niiiy ^lill Im> iiiaiii liiini'il ii^taiiiNt iho tli'linilanlN u jio iiri> roMiilonlM of iino|liii| iho iimo of t||i> paloni hy all, ihiN woiilil ho Kroiiinl, jj Ni'i'iiiM, of jiniNiliolioii ovor all tho i|i> tomliinlH iiH to Nuhjoot inatlor. /A/i/,, :iH. 17. OhjoolioiiM to iho JiiriNilioliiiii 011 iioooiinl of parli.'M or Huhjool imitlor, if noi iiukIo unlil alU'r aiiNworM aro |iiit in tho niorilN, roplio;)ti«.iiH tiloil, aiiil thi> o\iiililiNhoii, will ho too laiit, /A/./., :iH. I.'^. I'rooooiliiijfM hy hill in o(|Mily, iimlor {$ lit of Iho act of iH.til, aii, ii^aiiiNt the Coiiiinii*. xionor of I'atontH lo ooinpol hiiii lo i^Ai.i., .1. ; Ph., lH4fi. in. Whoro an owner of an undivided interest in a patent filed n hill ai;:un.xt the other joint owner to coinpel tlio specific performanoo of a eonlrnct in respoi't to manufacturing under siioli pal out, and tho defendant ainoiij» other thin<;s denied that ho was manufactiir- inir under tho patent, and sot up that c:oi;UTH, H. i. UWA jPMmiii'ri)iN AN r>i f«riiNm nrnnm ntvwHk llii> iirlii*lit iiiiiitnt'iM'tiiri'il hy likiM wiim illll'irrlll rrnlll llilll |Mlli'Ml, //>/l\. h'hinmint, 'i IIiiIhI., rii., ItOO 1(01). IIain'I>;.u>, CIiiiii.; N. .1 , iH47. V'O. Ill I'liMi'H iiriNini^ iitnli'r tin- |iiili>iit lituM, III!' JiiiiMilirlinii ttf iIm< Ciniiil ('iiiiilM i|iMiii| ii|Miti l!i«< ril ixi'M* Itrlinll, M|- tlit' niiiiiiiiil Ml ilt*4|i)ili', ImiI ii|iiiii IIh' Niiliii'i'l iiiiilli'i'. 'I'lii' |iiirlii-H Miiiy III- ril i/t'iiH III' llio Niiiiiii Mjiilf, ttml till' iiiiiniiiil iiiiiv )••' liir^^i' iM' Hiniill. AlltH V. lUmtt, I iUiilrhr., iMil. - Nki,k«.n, .1.; N. V., IHIII. •J I. Till' jiiiliiiiiry in-l nl' I7K», J} II, rt'i|iiii'iii^ iiiii< III' tlii> |iiirlicM, iiliiiiililVnr itiii'inl.'itit, III III! iiti itiliiiliiliiiil III' llii' Mull' wlii'ii' t lii< Hiiil i I liriiiit;lil, ilnrs ikiI it|i|ily l<> iii'liiiMH iti'iNiii;^ iiinli'i- llii- |iuti'iil lllWK. I Nil, \H{\. 'I'l, II in only iMU'c'HMiiry to ^ivo jiiriM- ilictioii in |iiili>iil niNCN, llial, llin prncKHH is Hi't'Vt'il |ii'i-Niiii.'illy ii|ioii llii> ill ri'iiihkiit ill till* ilisti'ii't wliori' llii> niiil in hroiiirlit, UM priiviiltMl liy tin* IiiIIit rltkiiNi* of ^ 1 1 ol' lliii not of 17H1)| iiliovn ri'l'i-rrod to. //>;./., iHd. 'J;l. 'i'o ciMifi'i' Jiii'isilii>rnin, llii' n^liirn of tli«> ninrshiil upon tint writ or hiiIi pii'iiii sIkhiIiI Htiito tliiit \\n\ H4«rvi(!(i of Hiicli writ or Hiil)|i«i'nH wuh iniido williin till' ilistrii-t wlutru Huit wuh llron^llt. Ibid., 4S7. 24. UiiiliT 1$ 17 of i\w net of 1h:i(I, till' I'iiviiil ('oiirtM of lln^ irnih-il St.iti-H liavt! not only orit/iwil, hut uIno rxrlu- »Uv jurisdiction of nil artiiiiiH arihin^ iindi'r till paU'iit liiWH. Dudley v. May- heir, :t ConiH., 11. — Stiionu, J.; N. Y., 1849. 25. Althongh the juri8di liMiiii^lil ill any nllii-r diolriit ihan ihat wlnTrof |||i> iji-l'indunl In an inlialiilanl, or in wliirli ln' Mliall Im' I'oiind il lliK linii' of Mi'rviiit; I In* wril. t>ny V. S'lw.irk I. li. r'o, I lUalilif., 0:10, n:i I. N K.isiis, .1. ; N. v., |M."iO. V'U. A for|iorali< Imily rr«>al<'d liy tin. ItiWM of oiiu Hiali' lias no corponili' ox. i^ili'iiiT lii-yiiiid llif liinitH of llii' li-rri- lory within wliiili llii' law rii-atiii;^ it ran opftali', and Im not hiu-Ii ii ihtmoii uh i-aii III' roiiNidorod an inlialiilant of iiny ilinlrii-t NO nn to liii HiMvcd with proi^oHN. /All/., n.l'^. '.27. WlH'rc, thori'foni, iho di'finnlanls wen* u (!or|Miration rroalnl liy llio Iuwn of Now .li'rHcy, hut had a Ntorii in Ihn I'ily of New York, and a prin'OHH of at- larhniiMit under tlin lawH of .\'<>w York wiiH roniiniMirrd ii^aiiiHt and lovii'd ii|iOM ilH property in New York, and the miiiii- nioiiH was aiNii HiTved iipoii tin- pre^^ident of ihe I'liiiipaiiy, who was easiiiilly in New York, Hilil, that the cuint had no jiiriHilii'lion of the iwrtion. //>/atent belonging to liim. Brown v. Shannon, 20 How., 5(5. — Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. 41. Under §11 of the judiciary act of 1780, jurisdiction of the person of a defendant (who is an inhabitant of an- other state), can only bo obtained, in a civil action, by service of process on liis person, within the district -where the suit is instituted. Chaffee v. HaywarJ, 20 IIow., 215. — Catkox, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. 42. And this provision is not changed by any of the process acts, or by the act of Congress conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts in patent cases, without regard to citizenship. § 11 of the judiciary act is not aifectcd by the suhsecjuont process acts, and it applies to alliiwW suits. Ibid., 216. 43. A suit brought to enforce the covenants of a license granted under a p.itoDt, is not a case arising under a law ot^the Uniteil States, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts to take cognizance of it. Judnon «t O'ood- year v. Union Rubber Co., 4 IJlatchf.— Inokusoli,, ,1. ; N. Y., 18r)7. 44. The nou-performanco of such coveiumts Avould be a violation of tho rights of a piftentee, as secured by tho covenants, l)ut not as secured by any law of the United States. Ibid. 45. Nor is an action for fraud in tho sale of a patent a case arising under such laws, so as to give jurisdiction thereof to tho Circuit Courts. I bid. 46. Under § 17 of the act of ls;50, the jurisdiction of ti»e Circuit Courtu in ))atent cases does not depeiul upon tho citizenship of tho parties before it. Ibid. 47. The Circuit Courts of tin' United States have ecpiity jurisdiclittn under the i)atent laws, by direct grant Irom Congress ; they do not however nu'rely act as auxiliary to a '.'ourt of law, and therefore do not vequiro the patentee to establish his legal rignl in a court of law and by a verdict of a jury. San- ders V. Logan, 3 Wall., Jr. — Giuku, J. ; I'a., 1801. 3. District Courts XT. S., un kr acta 1790 andllQ^. 1. The proceedings in a District Court, under § 10 of tlie act of 1793, upon the rule nisi, are not conclusive ; and the process, to bo awardcut the proceedings under such section are in tho n.iture of a Scire Facias at the common law to repeal a patent. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 IVIason, 104, 165. — Story, J. ; Mass., 1810. 2. From a judgment in such a j'lo- Wir^bistv Vv«iwC.5nt of repeal, if the issue is decided against the patentee. //>»■(?., 494. 7. A decision against a ])atcntee will repeal and vacate his letters iiatent, hut a decision in his favor gives no strength or continuation to them, to prevent his right from being contested aiul tried : any suit ho nuiy bring for u vi( littifu. I/>id., 494. 8. The summary proceeding tinder § 10 is given to protect the j)ublic from manifest frauds, in taking out jvitents (the fees of otlice being no check) fop known and common things. /i/(/.,4',)4. 9. It gives the power to any person to call ui)on a patentee for an exaniin- at ion of his right, and have it rcpealcil, if it Khali be found that he is not en- titled to it. Ibid., r)00. 10. In a proceeding under § 10 of the act of 1793, the court will not or- der the United States to be subatitiited as plaintitts in the action of Scire Fueias in the place of the petitioner. Wood V. Williams, Gilpin, 520-524.— Ilor- Kixsox, J. ; Pa., 1834. 4. State Courts. 1. The courts of a state have no juris- diction of actions brought for tlio in- fringement of patents granted under tlie laws of the United Sta.es. Such c.ises are only cognizable in the Circuit Courts of the United States. Parsons V. Barnard, 7 John, 144. — Cukiav; N. Y., 1810. COURTS, n. 4. 220 jritlHUIOTION AS TO I'ATKNTH. HTATB OOUHTa 'J. Tho Ht.'ito (KMirtH liavi! no juriHilic- tioti to Ht'ttio coiitlu'tiiiK I'laiiMs of pi'rlicH uiuliT iiitorfoiiii^ patt'iitH f^ranti'd by tho United StatoH. Gihaon v. Wuod- uiorl/i, 8 I'aiK^s 13 1. — WAL^70UTll, Ch. ; N. v., 1840. 3. Tliouf:jh tho validity of patents when directly adjudicated upon is ex- clusively within tho jurisdietion of the courts of tho United States, yet when they eonie into quetition collaterally their validity must become a subject of iii(|uiry in the state courts. Jilrh v. Jlofc/ikisii, 1() Conn., 414. — Wii.i-iamk, Ch. J.; Ct., 1844. 4. Where an owner of an undivided interest in a patent filed a bill against the other jiunt owner to compel the specific performance of a contract in respect to manufacturing under such patent, and tlio defendant among other things denied that he was manufactur- ing under tho patent, and set up that the article manufactured by him was (lifforcnt from that patent, Jleklf that the question raised was one of infringe- ment of a patent-right, of which a state court had no jurisdiction. Park- hurst v. Kinsman., 2 Ilalat., Ch., 600- J09. — IIalstead, Chan.; N. J., 1847. 5. Consent of parties cannot confer jin'isdiction, or render the judgment of a tribunal in a matter over which it has not by law any cognizance effectual. Dmttey V. Mayhew, 3 Corns., 12. — Strong, J. ; N. Y., 1849. C. Where therefore an action for an infringement of a patent was brought in a state court, and the defendant stip- ulated not to raise tlie question of juris- diction. Held, that such consent could not confer any authority, and that the hill must bo dismissed on the ground tlmt the state courts had no jurisdiction of actions in patent cases. Ibid., 10, 14. 7. The state courts have no jurisdic- tion of actions respecting jtatentH. Ibid.^ 14. 8. The purchaser of a patented ar- ticle, for the purpose of nsini/ it, exer- cises no rights created by the acts of Congress, nor does ho ^l ..r III t|!l^ i It 230 COrUTS, C— DAMAGES. AUTIIUUITY UK IiKl'lSIONH OF. WHO I.IAlll.H KOll MKAHUUK Or; KIC. validity of a patent lio at tho very foundation of the action, a state court cannot entertain jurisdiction. Tontlinaon V. JiaKel, MS.— DuEK, J. ; N. Y., 1867. l;{. Where a person brought an ac- tion in a state court to restrain the use of tho word ambrotype as app'icablo to jihotographic pictures, and claimed the exclusive right to use such word under an assignment of a patent for a process, in connection with which said word was claimed to have been inveated, Held, as the right of the plaintiff to use such word depended upon his exclusive right to tho process patented, that tho exist- ence and validity of such patent lay at the foundation of his cliim, and that the action was therefore founded upon an exclusive right under a patent, of which, under § 17 of the act of 1836, the Circuit Courts of tlio United States alone had jurisdiction, and that a state court could not take cognizance of it. Ibid. 14. The jurisdiction of a state court is not defeated because the subject matter of the action concerns tho ^lse of a patent-right, and the action does not necessarily involve any question in regard to the validity of the patent. Sherman v. Champ. IVans. Co., 31 Yavm., 174.— Relfieu), J. ; Vt., 1858. C Authority op Decisioxs of, in otiii;r Courts. 1. The rule of comity observed by the justices of the Supreme Court in cases which admit of being carried be- fore the whold court, is to conform to the opinions of each other, if any have been given. Such decisions amount to authority, which although not conclu- sive, are operative, whenever the ques- tion should be carried up. Washhum V. Gould, 3 Story, 132, 133.— SrouY, J. ; Mass., 1844. 2. This rule established by the judges of the Supremo Court, applies to trials at common law before a jury, but !ias no application either by its terms or tliu reason on which it is founded, to motions for injunctions wliero error may bo fol- lowed by irremediable mischief. Many V. HizcT, MS. — Spraguk, J. ; Mass., Ib49. DAMAGES, IN PATENT CASES. See also Counsel Feks. 1. In an action for a violation of a patent-right, the plaintiff may recover against one defendant, though no proof is given against the other; for all torts are joint as well as several, and a ver- dict may be had against one, though the other be acquitted ; aliter, in con- tract. Scutgen v. JCanotors, 1 Wash., 172. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1804. 2. The mere making of a macliiiie fit for use, and with a design to use it for profit, is an infringement ; but if there is no user, or no actual damage proved, the law allows only nominal damage. Whittemorev. Cutter, 1 Gall., 431, 433, 483.— Story, J.; Mass., 1813. 3. Only the actual damages sustained can be given. By actual damages are meant such damages as the plaintiifs can actually prove, and have in fact sustain- ed, as contradistinguished to mere im- aginary or exemplary damages, which in personal torts are sometimes given. Ibid., 483. 4. lu the case of the user of a ma- DAMAGES. 9SI will) l-IAlll.i; KOIl; MKAHIIIK OF; KXL'KMHIVK, KtfECT OV. chine, tlio rule of diunagos shouM bo the viiliic of tlio uso of such a inachino (luring the time of tho illegul user. If a making of tho machine and no naer is proved, nominal damagcH should be awarded ; but tho value of the exitense of making sucii a machine, or the price at whii-h it might be sold, is not a rule for such damages. i7>/t/., 483. 5. The rule of diiimj^o's under § 3 of the act of IHOO is the amount of the profits actually received by the defend- ant, in consequence of his using tlie ])laintilf 's invention. Loxoell v. Z,t'wiit, 1 Mas., 1S5. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1817. 6. When treble dam.'iges are allowed, the jury find single damages, and the court treble them in awarding judg- ment. IbiiL, 185. 7. Under the act of 1800, if the jury find for tho plaintiff, they find the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of the use by the defendants of the invention of the plaintiff's. The court will treble the damages. Grai/ v. James, I'et. C. C, 403. — Washington, J. ; I'a., 1 8 1 7 ; Bvana v. Iletticic, 3 Wash., 422.— Washington, J. ; Pa., 1818. 8. Though a patented machine may be 80 far inferior to other machines of the same kind as to deprive it of all in- trinsic value, if another superadds to it something which will remove its de- fects, it becomes valuable, and it seems that the person so rendering it valuable will be liable in damages for the use of it. Gray v. James, Pet. C. C, 480.-— Washington, J.; Pa., 1817. [But see post 13, 14.] 9. The plaintiff is entitled to be com- pensated for the damages he lias sus- tained by the infringement of his right. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash., 14.— Washington, J. ; Pa., 1820. 10. It is difficult to establish any gen- eral rule as to danmges. Tho bettei course is not to lay down any particulai rule of damages, but to leave the jury at large to estimate the actual damages according to tho circumstances of each particular case. J'Jarle v. Sawyer, 4 Mas., 14. — Story, J. ; Mass., IS'JJj. 11. The price of the machine, the na- ttire, actual state, and extent of the use of tlie jjlaintiff's hivention, and the par- ticular losses to which he may have been subjected by the piracy, are all i)roper ingredients to be weighed by the jury in estimating the damages. Ibid., 14. 12. A considerable latitude is neces- sarily given to the jury in estimating what they shall consider to be the ac- tual damage sustained by a j)atenteo by the violation of his right, and tho courts have shown no disposition to draw the ])Ower of the jury, in this re- spect, within close and narrow limits. The estimate of a jury must be very extravagant to enable the court to say that they have so disregarded the rule of the law, and so clearly exceeded the limits of their authority, that their ver^ diet caimot be supported. Whitney v. Emmett, Bald., 325, 320. — IIopkinson, J.; Pa., 1831. 13. If an invention, which is useless in itself, has been made useful by being combined with something else, or has been so changed in its operation by an invention to which the owner of tho worthless machine had no title or claim, the patentee of such worthless machine is not entitled to damages for the use of it. Ibid., 328. 14. A patentee is entitled to recover for the use of his invention only the damages he has actually sustained, and not the value that has been imparted to his invention by a subsequent inventor, nor for the use such inventor has made 'S^mi Sc^. ■W#-fv j^»;^:Wi iTa\ .>^4SS ^*^ UC'^V- ^pf^i III III III III ii* t!|^1 fei! C 'fJllT '•?*1 = li(4 M !«»ir)i |:»'ip,,;( '''^Wkii.S 231 1)AMA(;ks. WHO MAULK rUK; MKAHIIUK Or ; KXCKHHIVB, Kt'CKCT OT. of IiIh invention, prDvidoil by such uho lie liHM not intlicteiit reason for granting a iww trial. Stditli If V. W/u'pj'lc, 2 McLciiii, 40. — McLkan, J,; Ohio, 18;)9. I(i. Where the evidence sustains the verdict, (lie court carniot say that tiie jury should have given greater weight to olliiM* parts of (he testimony, which would have lessened damages. Tfnd.,40. 17. The awarding by (he jury greater damages than were anticipated, is not sncli a gross nii.slake in the jury as woulil authorize setting aside their ver- dict. The <|uestion of damages is sid)- mitted to (hi'ir fair judgment. Alden V. Dewey, 1 Story, 341. — Story, J. ; 3Iass., 1840. 18. In an action for an infringement of a i)atent, it is the duty of the jury, if they find for the plaintiff, to give him reasonable damages, such as are not covered by any of the costs ho will re- cover, to indemnify him for the neces- sary and unavoidable expenses of estab- lishing his right. Wushhitrn v. Gould, 3 Story, 13G.— Stouv, J. ; Mass., 1844. 19. Where, however, a patentee fraud- ulently leads .a party to infringe on his right, and then brings an action against him merely to gratify revenge or mal- ice, only nominal damages should be given. Ibid., 137. 20. But no valid patent should go out of court without the jury indemni- fying the owner for his reasonable and necessary charges in establishing his right. Ibid., 137. 21. In an action for an infringement of a patent, if the plaintiff establishes the vaUdity of his patent, and that the defendants have violated it, he xn (>ii. tith'd to such reasonable damages an sh:dl vindicate his right, and reindxirsK him for all such expenditures as luivo been necessarily incurred by hiin be- yond what the taxable costs will repay, in order to establish that right. /'/»/- son V. IJtKjlti Screw Co., 3 Story, 410. —Story, .!.; U. I., 1844. 22. The jury are at liberty, in the ex- ercise of a sound discredon, to give a plai.itiff such damages, not in their na- (ure vindictive, as shall compensate him fully for all his actual losses and injuries occasioned by the violation of the pat- ent by the defendants. Ibid., 410. 23. Where perscms, in (he employ of another, were guilty of an infringe mcnt by making the thing j)atent(Ml, but such ])ersons acted without a knowl- edge that it had been patented only nominal damages were given for such infringement, liryce v. Dorr, 3 McLean, 583.— :McLkan, J.; Mich., 1845. 24. In cases of wanton and perseve- ring encroachments on the rights of in- ventors, the court will be justiH.'d in trebling the damages, if required for the full hidemnity and protection of any wronged patentee. Allen v. Bboit, 2 W^ood. tfe ]Min., 147. — Wooonuifv, J. ; Mass., 1840. 25. Damages, in a case submitted to the "foir judgment" of the jury, will not be deemed excessive, beciuse they are more than a witness may have testi- fied to, or slightly more than the court deem proper; the A'erdict will not be set aside, and a new trial ordered, un- less the damages are very excessive and unreason.able. Ibid., 149. 26. Actual damages, according to § 14 of the act of 1830, are the sum fixed by the verdict. Stcphois v. Felt, 2 Blatchf., 38.— Betts, J. ; N. Y.. Id46. Hi*- li ti'f ■^;|if DAMAr.KS. 988 wiin i.iAiii.i': roii; mkahuiih or; kxckhaivk, crrEOT or. 27. A iH'w triiil will not liu granted lu'cmiso tilt' jury timl lilu-ral y the plaiii- tirt' tliat sales were liighly profitalde, iiinl that the defendant had niainifae- tured and Hold the article in large quan- tities, and the defentlant olfere*! no proof, limiting the evidence of the plain- till', or us to the cost or value of the article, JlehU that the jury were warranted in ex('rci^i^g a liheral discretion, and that a verdict of |2,000 would not be inter- fered with. Ibid., 3S, .30. 28. In sucih a cise, a plaintifT ought not to be Iield to the most exjdicit and exact proof of the amovnit of diimages unstained, and the jury are warr.'inted in exercising a liberal discretion. Ibid., 39. 29. If a defendant jjrcfers to le.ave tlio matter to general inference and the estimate of a jury, when he might make it reason.'iMy certain by evidence on liis jiart, the finding of the jury should not he interfered with, except in eases of palpable extravagance. Ibid., 39. .^O. Damages should be compensato- ry, not vindictive. The object is not imnisliment, but full indemnity. The amount of profit Avliich the defendant lifts derived is one of the elements to be regarded, Init the amount of loss and injury which the plaintiff has sustained should be regarded also. Kiihjht v. Gamt, ^lir. Pat. Off., 135.— Kane, J. ; Pa., 184G. 31. If the machine made was never used, the damagoe Khould be merely nominal, as against the maker ; if it has been sold by him and used by others, tiie verdict should be for tlie damages actually sustained by tlie plaintiff, with- out exclusive reference to the profita- bleiu'ss of the use by the wrong-doer, or the length of time such use may have eonlinueiyon v. Serrell, 1 IJlatchf., 245. — Niii.so.v, J. j N. Y., 1847. 34. "Where a plaintiff fded a disclaim- er under fj 7 of the act of 1837, after the ccmimeneement of his suit, Held, that thougli ho was not entitled to costs against the defendant, by § of tho same act, that tho court nevertheless, under § 14 of the act of 1830, had tho power to increase tho verdict, in tho w.ay of damages. Ibid., 245, 240. 35. Actual damjxges for an infringe- ment are, however, as a general rule, all that can be claimed. W^here the cir- cumstances are aggravated, and such as to repel altogether the bond fides of tho infringement, the i)ower to ineiease tho verdict, under § 14 of the act of 1836, may be exercised. Each case must, however, stand upon its own circum- stances. Ibid., 246. 36. Previous to tho act of 1 836, the court were compelled to treble the dam- ages. Since that act they are not com- pelled to do so, but may increase them or not at their discretion, within that limit. In the exercise of that discretion, the court will not increayc them if, in their opinion, the jury have already ex- ceeded their proper measure. Stimp- |«IIIMlii ^ iil .(ww ^roitiul of fXcoHMivo (laiim- gim, it" tho verdift was in accon lance with the (lirt'ction of the court. Ifnd.^ lUO. 38. Tho term " actujil (laniagos" can- not 1)0 oonstruoil to mean cxoniplary, vindictive or ])nnitory clnrnaj^cs, inflicted by way of sniart-nioney, or |iunishinent of the defendant for fraudulent, mali- cious, or outraj^jeous wronjjjs. Ihid.^ 100. 39. The defeiulant is to HufVerthe in- fliction of treble damajifes only when the court are of tho opinion ho has acted luireasonably or ojtproMsivel y. Ib'uJ.^ 1 70. 40. Tho Htandard for esliinatinj? dam- ages fur the infriiii^ement of a patent- ed machine, is tho actual profits from tho makintf, usinj?, or selling of tho in- vention by the defendant. The reason- pblo cost of tho labor and materials must be deducted, as the ]»laintitr him- fielf, if he had nuide the nuiclnnes, would liavo had to pay such expenses. Par- ker V. Perkins, MS. — Guikb, Kane, JJ.; Pa., 1848. 41. Where a patent has been infring- ed Mithout a knowledge of tho plaintiff's right, and under such circumstances as to warrant the inference th.at the defendant was not aware that he was violating tho rights of any one, the jury should only give such damages as would compen- sate the injury done to the i)laintifr. Parker v. Corbi?i, 4 McLean, 403. — McLeax, J. ; Ohio, 1848. 42. But where the circumstances of infringement are of an aggravated char- acter, vindictive damages, which would include counsel fees, and something more by way of example to deter others from doing the same thing, may bo given. Ibid., 403. 43. Tho rule which goveruH on tho <|Ucstion of damages is, to givt^ artnal flamageK — not vindictive or exfinplarv damages, but tho actual loss suNtaincd which will be tho ordinary profits the patentee derives from the sab' of his in- vention. Jluckv. J/trtttance, \ liiatclif. 400.— Nklson, J.; N. Y., 18411. 44. Damages arc only to be conipcn. satory; the criterion is indemnity. The jury may take into consifb'ration the loss sustained by tho plaintiff, and like- wiso the profits made by the defeiidaiit. Parker v. JJulme, 1 West. Law Jour., 428.— Kane, J.; Pa., 1H49. 45. Tho (pu^stion of damages is ex- clusively with tho jury, and if they are of the opinion that the defendant lias unlawfully infringed the jthiintitrs pii- ent, they ought to award him such siiin, as in their judgment, founded upon (Iio evidence, would fully indemnify him for tho actual danuagos he has suffered by reason of such infringement, bejoiid tho taxable costs. J'oofe v. Silnfty, l Blatchf., 450, 400.— CoNKUNG, Nel- son, J J. ; N. Y., 1849. 40. Where tho defendants entered upon the violation of the plaintilV's pat- ent, after having been warned of the consequences, and went on with their eyes open, disregarding the cl:iiins of the patent, and showing a williiiifnoss to avail thenjselvos of the j)rofits of his discovery, and to deprive him of the fruits of his genius, time and expense, Jleld, that the defendants did not stand in a position to entitle themselves to a fa- vorable consideration, and that the jury were warranted in giving liberal dama- ges. Ibid., 407. 47. The jury must find the issues as presented, and assess the damages for the breach, if any, of tho thing alleged. It makes no difterence that it is an im- DAMAGES. 235 WHO LIAUI.H rou; mkahurk or; mxckhhivk, Kri'dr or. iiifiii'ii"! isMiu'. (tiw>fi/i(H' V. J^'ii/, MS. .-(iitiKH, J. ; N. J., I«ft0. 48. Ill an iictioii fur inakini; ami ncII- in^ II iiiacliiiu' wliifh is ati iiitViiii^tMiiciit uiMiii llif plaiiitill'^s patent, llitt iilainlill' Ui-ntitloil as (lania<;cs, to all the actual prulits wliicli tlut ilcfiMiilant. lias nian, J. ; N. Y., ik50. 40. TIk' ilillt'ioiice hi'twocn tho cost and sclliiiij; price is not, howevi'r, all j)rotit. Till! intiircst on the capital, the risk of bad debts, and the expeiiscH of selling', must all be taken into the nc- ooiiiit in arriving at the profits. Ihid.^ 14;i. 50. It is the jn.ikinp .and sellinnf to be used, and not the Hclling, or buying, or milking alone, for which full damages aro usually given. Ho(j[f v. Kmcrmn^ 11 How,, (307. — WooDUUuv, J.; Sup. Ct, 1850. 51. The price paid for a license to use a thing patented, may be submitted to tlicjuryasa suitable guide in estima- ting damages for an infringement, and is the customary one followed for making and selling patent stoves, spokes, lasts, «fcc., and seems once to have been treat- ed by law as the chief guide in all jiat- ent cases. Und., 607. ■ 52. l)Ut that sum mav be mitigated, if the maker of the machine was igno- rant of the existence of the patent-right, and did not intend any infringement. Ibid., GO 7. 53. That however furnishes no reason for allowing no damages when making the machine to be used, and not merely for a model, or for fancy, or pbilusoph- ical illust ration. //>/f/., tl()7. rd. Till- intent nut to injure never ex- onerates iVum all dainagcM fur the act- ual injury or encroachment, though it may mitigate them. Ibid., (JOH. •")."). It must bo a very extreiiu' caso where a judgment will be reversed on account of excessive damages in actions ex dilirto, when the instructions of the court suggested to the jury the true general rule as to damages, and when, if excessive, a n»'W trial could have been moved in the Circuit Court. Ifdd., 1(08. i30. The rule of law as to damages, when an infringement is made out, is to give to tln! plaintill'the actual loss which he has sustained, and nuthiiig mure. Kx- emphu'yor vimlietive damages cannot be given. If the damages are iiisulllcieiit, thectMU't may treble them. I/ild,\i this ease, that the plaintilfwas entitled t' ho profits on all the machines sold by the defendant. IMl v. Wilis, 2 IJlatehf., 201.— Nki.so\, .1.; N. Y., 1H51. 67. The plaintift' in a ]»atent ease, when he has established a right to re- cover, is entitled to all the actual dam- ages he has sustained, as contradistin- guished from exemphiry, vindictive, and punitive d;images. These are not to bo taken in consideration in a patent case. I'itt.1 V. Hall, 2 IJlatchf., 238.— XklsoN, J.; N. Y., 1851. 58. One mode of .arriving .at sucli ac- tu.al damr.ges, is to ascertain the proHts wliich tho plaintiff derives from the machines which lie manufactures and sells, and which have been made and sold by the defendant. Ibid., 238. 59. Another mode is to ascertain the profits Avhich the party infringing luas derived from tho use of the invention. This moasuro of damages is not, how- ■jj^ijjL .>^i»» Ml "w: ••'•■ <^wL ( ' n 1^ II LI >-^wW^ •km^ktf^.i^>^X:: Mt I)AMA(!KS. fc "r rWM '^rv- %ioiHly aiilijcctcil to tlu) (.'xpiMiNu luid laltor to wliicli llio luttt-r U rr('i|iifnt!y cxposctl in tlic pro(*(<8H of invention iiml expcrinicnl. Hrncu tho piirty intVin^ liif^ ni:iy well jinonl to h«>II at Ii'MH prollts • tlian tlif pal«'nt«'('. ffu'iL, '2'M>. 00. 'rii<> pliiintilT is llicrctore ontitif ])l.iintifr iH also ontitlud to rt't'ovor iiitt'ii'st on such damages, from the commencenient of the Huit. It>i(/., 2:10. (12. The ujcnor.nl rtilc of damapfos in, that till' pl:iintitr, if he has maile out hiN lij^ht to rt'covcr, is enlillcd to tho sw- tual dama^t's he iias Hustainod by rea- son of tiio infriii^cnuMit, an.v< 70.] 04. Thoro is no distinotion, in rojjard to tho rulo of damages, botwooii an in- fringement of an entire inaohino and an infringement of a mere improvomont on a machine. Tho rulo which is to govern is the same, whether a patent covers an entire niaohino or an improvement on a machine. Ibid., 257. [Ovorruled,joo»< 77.] 65. And tho plaintitt' will also bo en- titled to iiitorost on tho actual dania^i>H iiH found by tho jury, from tho com. nienoorrunt of tho Muit. /AiV/., ii:)i>. 00. In nil uution for an infringement of a patent, tho rulo is to give the aciu;i| damage or loss incurred by re.-iMou of tho infringoinont, :ind that is the proliti which tho plaintiffs would have niailo if thoy had not bcm ondiarrassod by thu intorforeuct> of tlu' di'ltndimts ; hccainsD (ho law presumes (hat (ho plaindll's wouhl have had tin* p!i(ronago divcr(c(l l»y tlu' dofendants. 'Ditlnim v. /w- A'oy, 2 Hlatchf., I!»t." Ni.:i,HoN,J. ; N.V., |s,-,j. 07. Tho profits which (ho plaintiiVs have lost in (••>nse(pit>iicoof (lie iiil'iiii"(>. inont affords, therefore, a criterion l»y which todolormino the aniounl i>t'i|a,r|. agos they have sustaiiu'd. llilil.. lui. 08. Tho jury, also, in ostnuadni,' (ho damages, may (ako into aooomit tho in- terest on tho dam.agos, fnun tho tiim sustained, if thoy choose, and give it liy way of n'rk\ 10 IIow., 4hh.— (JuiKit, J.; Sup. Ct., IH'W. • 71. Till' patfiit, net (»f iHmi, g 1 1, rniitiiii-H till' jury to tlii> .'ictiinl ilaiiia;{('M lU'^taiin'tl hy llu' pat' ntcc. 'I'lin poutT to iiKTcuHu tliitni, itH piinitivt) (laiiia;{t>H, {r ('i)iiiiiiiltfil to tilt' tliHcrrtioii ami jiiil^- nu'iit of fill' court. /f>iil., ■\H\). 7'J. TIktc t'aiiiiot l»»! oiu' riih* of dam n};oH wiiich will ctpially apply to all rftMOS. Till* tnoilo of nNcortaiiiiii^ tlH>s«> actual (laMia>;»'H must lu'crssarily ment, to the profits he could have made in construct- ing and vending his machine over and abov(! the mere profits arising out of its manufacture. Tho profits that grow out of the exclusive right to manufac- turing the invention under tho jiateiit belong to the patentee, while the mere mechanical ])rotits are excluded from tho damages. Ibid. 225. 81. If tho invention is for an improve- ment of a machine, then the ]):itcntco is entitled, as a measure of damages, to all the advantages of tlw tise of his patented improvement, excluding the profits of tho manufacture, and exclud- ing also the value, if any, of tho use of tho old machine. Hid. 225. 82. The fact of the use of a patented machine is evidence of utility, and should subject the party using to dama- ges. Simpson v. Mad Itivcr 11. i?., 6 McLean, 604. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1855. feir;^^,M* 'S^: 'SD ^ ■^s^W^ MCw.'^^ 888 DAMAUKH. \t ti **:< .^!?; m i woo UAHji nwt MMMM ovi txcnMVB, imoT or. »:i. Ill mi tit'tioii of iiilViitt;t'iiii>iit, no |)Iou hv'mn tili'tl, mill » ili ruiilt t'litiTt'il, tiiif fiiiirtli III' till' |irii«'i'i'(|i» lii'iii;( (Mti- tniiti'tl »<« tlui |iri)lllH iit'llu* iiiai-liiiii', till' (laiiui)Xi'f< wiTU iiMNi'MMnl tit lliat lUiiniiiit. J'lirkitr V. /liimkei', IJ Mrf.otui, 032. — All I.KAN, J. ; Ohio, IH.^.-i. Hi III (•Nliiiialin;^ tliu miiiiiint nfiiain- B^'H, till' jury raiiiiot, ffn lii-yDlnl lli»' niiin iiu>titii)iM-il in t\w ilcflarnlioii. UV ntitm V. y. V. it I fur. li. li., M ,]inv: Fr. IiiHl., .TJ.J (::il Her.).— Nklmon, .1.; N. v., lHft5. H.5. III cHtiiiiatiti}; tho artiial ilania^cM till' rule ipt to );ivo tliu valiio of the iihh of tilt' patt'iiti'il fliiiijx iliirinj^ tin' illi'<^al iisiT, or ill iitliiM" wiinls, tlii> anmuiit of protitM. M'iiifi rtniitfi \. /ifditiyton^ M.S. — WiLHOV, .1.; Ohio, lH-.«. 80. No iixril ami crrtain riilo for ilaiiiat^cH can lio t'stalilishcil appliralili* to all oaHOM, but tht> statiitf has tixcil the jj;i'iu'ral riilo that n |iati'iiti'o Im I'ti- titU'il to ri'coviT Hucli ilaiiiJi^oM jih Ih' has kIiowii by his |>ronf*taiiK'il in cdiisimiuciu'o of tlu' iisi> of his invention, without his lirt'iisi' niul consent, linnsom v. ^fayor^ rfr., o/N. Y., MS.— Ham., .1.; N. V., is.-iO. 87. In an action ajjainst tin* city of New York for an infrinm-rm'nt for the nse of mi invention in the iinproveinent of flro-engines, ///>e of till in. fringeineiit or appropriation of hU in. vention by another without IiIm licfiii.i>, iM entitled to the actual datiia;;i'H In. has Hustained by re:isori of hucIi itilViii.'. iiieiit. Smith \. Iliifijin$^ MS. Nti. Hov, J. ; N. Y., iHftO. H\). The theory c»r principle in re*p«irt to daniagi'N is, that a thinl persini u||,, iidopts, appropriates, or uses ilu< im. proveineiit of another, interferes with his ciiNtotn, Iiin monopoly, or latluT, property, a rl affects the beiii'lilx wliidi he would otherwise be eiititlnl to //./«/. 00. Tho rule oxcludes any e ed or vindictive daniiigi'swhic limes allowed in cusi's of wilt... I hid. 01. If the patentee has an estiibli^liiil price in the market for a pateiit-rii;lit, or what is called a p;itent fee, that Mini w ith the interest constitutes the iiiia^uro III" daniages. If there is no sinli est;il». lislied price for a patent fee, then tho jury are to ini[iiire of the loss or in- jury he has sustained, and tln' protits which the infruiger luis made liy tho ust> of the invention may be taken .-is the measure of damagi's. SliiUn v. Hot dm, ;{ JMatcht'., 64:). — Nklhi'.v, J ; N. v., IS.'iO. 02. If the jury adopt tho price of tho patent fee, as the measure of daiiiagcs, it will operate to vest the title of its jiateiit to the extent of its use by tho defendant complained of througliuiit its term. IhUl. {).^. If, however, thoy adopt tlio prof- its from the nso as tln' measure of dani- ages, the title does not pass. Ih'nl., .')45. Pi. In an action for the infringemeut Hw«,,. PAMAOK**. ■J.10 WNO UANI.H r»H| MKANI'll* Of; RXriPlMVH, RMTWr Of, of li ptitfiit, tin* nili» of clnninu't"« l-* tin- hvU'iil iiM* of tl)u tiling; ittiliiiti'il, not wliiit litt mi^llt liiivo miuUi l>y ri'iiMoii- itit; till' tiinu 1)0 iiMi'tl tlio iilttintltfH itn. I*rnviiiii(""»' •""'*' "f iluin- , tlio jiiiy iimy liiUi' into (•nii<>iiU iirti«Ii'H nniniil'irtnn'tl. 1)^. Milt. wlnTo tin' wroii^ Iikm Im-cii ' Wuhrfmri/ lti'>i»t C'o., v. A'. )'. (0 //. ilonc iiinliT »;xi.{niviil»'., MS. — Inokuhui.i,, J.j N. till' court liuH till* powiT, iiihIit tlie ntat- V., 1H5H. uto, to |iiiiiisli it mU'<|H!iiily, liy »ii in- loi. 'I'lm ohjoct of ^ It of tho net (tf (•ri':»«' of lilt' iliiniaifi'i, //nj>cnheitnfit v. X. V. l 1 t •-•l ^•^Hi*! ■ -' 'Vwc- ^ywfWfC'^v m k 240 i)A:siAr,Ks. will) I.IAUI.K KOK; MKASUUK OV, KXC'KSNIVK, KH'KCT OK. f^ ^ ■liiiiip. ar !k If* lliii s'.fii ■ff|| 'Hi ^i ■J^i 5 4.11^:1,^ iiioiit 1>» >!ii' use ol'ii ii):h-iiiiu> wh'u'li was tlio samo ill |»riii('i|)Ic', tliat the riilo of s, AIS. — Lkaviti', J. ; Ohio, 1858. 100. When ascertainable, the defeiul- nnt's profits are the proper rule of daiii- ajjes. Cofitniin v. Licsor, 31S. — Lkav- irr, J.; Ohio, 1859. 107. In an action for damages for an iiifriiiATKNTH. nnd ^*«'^ l>i^ peculinr invcntiuu si nuM rcfuiul all tlio iit't profits inmlo by HUch inlViiigoiiu'iit. Ibid. 115. Although a piitentoo may dc' flcribc his invention us an iniprovemcMit of soino known nuu'hinc, yet if the niiU'liinc constitnte a distin'^t species of inai'hine or scientilie article kiiowi in the market and having a j)ecnliar value on ac'coi , t of its peculiar form or func- tions, the measure of damages for in- fringing the patent is the amount of profit on the wholf machine. The case of Sii/mour v. McCormicA', 10 How., 480, distinguished from this. If»l''. 116. ]5ut if the patent is for some addition or improvement on an old and well-known implement, or some separate part or device thereof of small impor- tance compared with the whole — if the license to use tittf addition or improve raent was sold as separate and distinct from the whole machine, the measure of damage would be the price of a license, and the profit made by the ex- clusive right to make and sell the whole machine. Ibid. 117. The federal courts sitting in equity, cannot, under the act of July 4th, 1830, § 14, treble the damages found by them for violating a patent- right, as they may when sitting at law, aud on a verdict and judgment. Ibid. DECLARATION. As to declarations of parties and others, see Evidence, D. As to declaratioa in pleading, see Pleading, A. ij 16 DEFENCES TN ACTIONS AND SUITS KESPKCTING PATENTS. See also (Jknkk.vi. Lssuk; Pi.kaiunij, U. ; J KIOK UsK. 1. § of the act of IVOa d(".':- not enumerate .all the di'fenccs of which the defendant may legally avail himself; he may give in evidence that he ncvcu' did the act attributed to hin>, that the i)at- entee is an alien not entitletl untli-r the act, or that he has a license or authoritv from the patentee. Whitfnnore v. Cut- ter, 1 Gall., 435. — Sroiiv, J. ; !Mass., 1H13. 2. The title of a patentee m:vy be impeached by showing that he was not the first inventor, and this, whethi-r the patentee w.as aware of such jtrior dis- covery or not. Eoans v. IJaton, Pet. C. C, 342.— Wasiiinoton, J,; Pa., 1810. 3. An offer to take a license of a pat- entee does not take away the right of the person making such otfer to deny that the patentee was the origimil in- ventor. Ibid., 347. 4. All matters of defence or of objec- tion to a patent are not enumerated in §§ and 10 of the act of 1 793. ZoiO- ellv.Ijewis, 1 Mas., 180. — Story, J.; Mass., 1817. 5. But it is not a matter of defence that the invention of the patentee is not of such general utility as to super- sede others of tho same kind in use. Ibid., 186. 0. It is a good defenco to an action for the infringement of a patent-riglit that tho thing secured by the patent was not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use, or had been described in some public work uu' Pf^k -■/'• '^^ :yifW ■«'••' (^ ',^■^4 ''y^^ >■<» '"WL-/. v. 'Wli i i i^^W% hi^m^^i^'^izy^' !» Pt 242 DEFKNCES. ii ^^ 'SSilil 4'i S)u km TO suns A I) ACTIONS HE81'K(T1N(1 I'ATKNTS. terior to the supposed discovery of the patentee. Jicdfonl v. Hunt, 1 jMiis., 304.— Story, J.; Mass., 1817. 7. It is perteclly iiiuiLiteriiil whether the first inventor lias taken dut a patent or has dedicated tlie invention to tlie puhlic or not ; for tlio defendant may Btand upon the defence tliat the plain- tiff is not the first inventor who put the hivention in use. Ibid., 304. 8. Where two persons as joint in- ventors of a machine, covenanted with each other that each should have certain states, and that neither should use or sell the machine in the territories of the other, IldJ, in an action for covenant broken, that the defendant could not plead that neither was the inventor, or that separate jjatents had been granted to each. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Pick., 443, 447.— WiLDK, J.; Mass., 1823. 9. In an action for an infringement of a patent, a\ here the declaration goes for a user during a limited period, and after- ward the party sues for a tiser during another and subse(pient period, a ver- dict and judgment in the former case is not a legal bar to a recovery in the sec- ond action. The piracy is not the same, nor is the gravamen the same. Earle\. Saicyer, 4 Mas., 14. — Stojiv, J. ; Mass., 1825. 10. § of the act of 1793 does not enumerate all the defences which a party may make in a suit brought ag.ainst him for violating a patent. One obvious omission is where he uses it un- der a license or grant from the inventor. Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet., 23. — Sto- KY, J.; Sup. Ct., 1829. 11. It is not inconsistent with the principle or meanmg of such section, that a defence may be made, that al- though the patentee is the first as well as the true inventor, he has abandoned or dedicated liis invention to the public. Ibid., 23. 12. The distinction is well settled he-v tween defences, which authorize a ver- dict and judgment in favor of the de. fendant in the particular action, leaving the plaintiff free to use his patent, and to bring other suits for its infringement and those which, if successful, wouM require '^le court to enter a judgment not only for the defendant in the par- ticular case, but one which declares the patent to be void. Grunt v. Raymond, Pet., 240. — Marshall, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 1832. 13. If a party is content with defend- ing himself, he may either jiload spe- cially or plead the general issue, and give the notice required by § (J of the act of 1793, of any special matter he means to use at the trial. If he shows that the patentee has failed in any of those prerequisites on which the author- ity to issue the patent is made to de- pend, his defence is complete, and he is entitled to the verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the coiu't. Ibid., 240. 14. But if not content with defend- ing himself, he seeks to annul the pat- ent, he must proceed in precise con- formity to § 6 of the act of ■" 703, and " fraudulent intent" must be found by the jury to justify a judgment of voca- tur by the court ; § 6 does not control § 3. Ibid., 247. 15. The defendant is permitted to proceed according to § 6, but is not prohibited from proceeding in the usiiiil manner, so far as respects his defence, except that special matter may not bo given in evidence on the general issue, unaccompanied by the notice which § 6 requires. Ibid., 247. 16. It is a good defence to an action for an infringement of a patent, that tli' defencp:s. 243 TO SUITS ANU ACTIONS KESl'KCTINQ PATENTS. sjtccifioation docs not contain a written descriplK"! of the invention in sucli full, clear, and exact terms as to distinguish the same from all things before known, and 80 as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same. Ibid., 246-248. 17. The case o{ Pennockx. Dktlogiie (2 Pet., 1), affirms the princii)le that the failure on the part of a patentee in those prerequisites of the act authorizing a patent, is a bar to a recovery in an ac- tion of infringement, and the validity of this defence does not depend on the intention of the inventor, but is a legal inference upon his conduct. Ibid., 249. 18. § 6 of the act of 1793 declares the defences that shall be available for a party agahist whom a patentee has brought suit for the invasion of his n^hf, but no processi or vneans are given for the examination of a patent- ri"lit, however false and frauduh.'nt it may be, if the patentee will forbear to bi'ing suit against tho.se nsing it. De- lano V. Scott, Gilpin, 499. — Hopkinson, J.; Pa., 1834. 19. In an action for an infringement of a patent, it is no defence that defend- ant's invention worked better, or was more elegant than the plaintift''s. It does not follow because the defendant lias improved the plaintiff's invention, that he can use it. Alden v. Deicey, 1 Story, 337, 338.— Story, J.; Mass., 1840. 20. It is a good defence to a bill in equity for an injunction on account of an alleged violation of a patent, that the inventor, before application for letters patent, had allowed his invention to go into public use ; but such use must have been with the consent of the inventor, and have been generally allowed or ac- quiesced iu, and not have been merely experimental or temporary. Wycth v. Stone, 1 Story, 281. — SioiiY, J. ; Mass., 1840. 21. It is also a good defence to such an action that the patentee, after obtain- ing a patent, has countenanced or si- lently ac(piiesced in the use of his in- vention by others, such con(bict being strong presumption of an abandonment or surrender of his right. Ibid., 282. 22. Under § 9 of the act of 1837, it is a good defence, both at law ujid iu equity, in every suit brought upon a patent, that there has been an unreason- able neglect or delay to file a disclaimer when one is necessary. Ibid., 295. 23. The defence, provided by § 13 of the act of 1836, " that the patentee was not the original and first inventor or discoverer of the thing patented," ia complete without showing that the first inventor had put his invention in prac- tice. Ilildreth v. Heath, MS. (App. Cas.)- Craxch, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 24. The use of the thing patented prior to the granting of a reissued pat- ent, and during the interval between the original and renewed patent, will not defeat an action for an infringement under the reissued patent. Stinipson v. West Ches. R. R., 4 IIoav., 402.— Mc- Lean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1845. 25. A foi'mer verdict or dismissal, on a bill filed for an injunction to re- strain the use of a patent, is not a bar to a subsequent suit, unless a judgment was rendered on such verdict atrainst the plaintiff, or the dismissal was on the merits. Allen v. Rlimt, 2 Wood. & ]Min., 132, 133. — Woodhuuy, J.; Mass., 1840. 2G. In an action for an infringement, a plea of prior use or sale, under § 7 of tne act of 1839, to constitute a bar to the plaintiff's action, must allege such use to have been more than two years P^^*^ ■m w.; Igjpr'j m ^-rn^^P???:: ■:^J*f iitf ■»>». W^^i^ ^*^ii ^'W\ ^^y^^ I^WWk e^ki^'^'g: 244 DEFENCES. TO SUITS AND ACTIUN8 RK81>£CTINa PATG.NTS. '•■ i:*wiH*^ I .'•'hi*;! m 'k %a S|»v %! *!>» '■■Hft.i l)(.'foro the a])))lication, or an abandon- ment, so as to show that the patent is invalid, by abandonment or otlierwisc. Jiout V. Jiall, 4 McLean, 170. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1840. 27. Where an action is on a promise \.o jiay a certain sum for the assi^^nment of a patent, and sucli assignment was the consideration of the promise, the validity of the patent may bo impeach- ed, as a want of consideration, in de- fence of the claim. Wilder v. Adama, 2 Wood. & Min., 331. — Woodbuky, J. ; Mass., 1840. 28. But such a defence cannot be re- sorted to when the action is on a sealed instrument, or when another implied covenant to the plaintilf was the real consideration, upon which implied cove- nant the defendant would have a reme- dy, or when the defendants have receiv- ed the proceeds from the articles sold, to recover the agreed proportion of which the action is brought. Ibid., 332. 29. The defence, authorized by § 15 of the act of 1830, that the patentee had "surreptitiously or unjustly obtain- ed his patent for that which was in fact invented or discovered by another," is only .applicable in the case of a patent 80 obtained while the "first inventor Avas using reasonable diligence in adapt- ing and perfecting his invention ;" and if pleaded, it may be necessary for the defendant to show, in order to vacate the patent, that he was using reasonable diligence when the patent was obtained. Perry v. Cornell, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cranch, Ch. J.; D. C, 1847. 30. Under § 15 of the act of 1830, l)roviding, in the case of a patent grant- ed to an alien patentee, that it should be a good defence that such patentee had omitted to put and continue his in- vention on sale upon reasonable terms, within eighteen months after the pntent was granted, it is not essential that such patentee should take active meaiiM for the purpose of putting his invention in market, and forcing a sale ; but it is a sufficient comj)liance with the law tliat he should at all times be ready to soil at a fair price, when a reasonable oiler is made. 2htham v. Ze liuy, MS.— NisLSOX, J.; N. Y., 1849. 31. Where the defence is set up that a prior machine was essentially similar to that of the plaintitf, and the jtroof relied on is a description of sucli ma- chine contained in a printed publication, such description must be suHiciently full and precise to enable a mechanic to con- struct it, .and must be, in all material re- spects, like that covered by or described in the plaintifTs patent. Proof of a previous structure, bearing some resem- blance, in some respects, to the plain- tiff's improvements, and which might have been suggestive of ideas, or led to experiments in the discovery and com- pletion of his improvement, Avill not in- validate the patent. Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 01, 62. — Lbavitt, J. ; Oliio, 1849. 32. A party setting up a right under a contract for an interest in a future term of a patent, as an equitable defence against an action brought by one having the legal title, must deny that the plain- tiff is a bona fide purchaser without no- tice, and the burden of proof is on him, so impeaching the legal title. Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatchf., 150, 151.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 33. It is a well established rule in equity, that the matter entitling a party to an amendment of his contract may be set up by way of equitable defence against a proceeding involving the rights of the parties under the instrument. DEFENCES. 24S TO BUIT8 AND ACTIONS RESPECTINa I'ATKNTS. Woodworlh v. Cook, 2 Bhitrhf., 158, 160. — Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 34. But such ilofcnco cannot bo set up where the rights of bona fide pur- chasers have intervened, wliich would or might bo seriously prejudiced by al- lowing the contract to be so reformed. Ibid, 159. 35. Where an action was brought in Louisiana under § 16 of the act of 1830, by the owners of a prior patent against a subsequent patentee, to set aside and have declared inoperative the subsequent patent, and on the hearing the bill was dismissed on its merits, Ihkl, that the dismissal of the bill did not necessarily import that the two pat- ents interfered, or that the prior patent was void and inoperative, and that such judginent could not bo pleaded in bar to an action on such prior patent in another state against an assignee of an interest in a subsequent patent. Tylar V. Hyde, 2 Blatchf, 312.— Betts, J. ; N. Y., 1861. 36. To constitute such a judgment a bar to such subsequent action, it should have been direct and affirmative in its terms, and have asserted the interference of the patents, and have declared the patent void in Avhole or in part, or in- operative and invalid in some part of the United States. Ibid., 313. 37. It is no justification of the in- fruigement of a renewed patent that the infringer had stolen and used the invention with impunity before the pat- ent was amended. Goodyear v. Day, MS.— Grier, J. ; N. J., 1852. 38. § 7 cf the act of 1839 gives no protection to those who may have seized upon an invention or discovery disclosed in a patent, Avhose specifica- tion may happen to be defective or in- sufficient. Ibid. 39. The granting of a new license by the owner of a patent to a second per- son to make and vend a patented article within a certain territory, after he had granted a prior and exclusive license to another person for the same territory, is no bar to an action brought on the first contract or license, to recover the amount agreed by it to bo paid for machines manufactured under such con- tract, but may be available by way of recoupment of damages. Pitta v. Jameson, 15 Barb., 317. — Johnson, J.; N. Y., 1853. 40. In an action for an infringement, if a patent has been granted to the de- fendant for what he uses, he may put such patent in evidence in justification or defence of such action. Corning v. Burden, 15 IIow., 271. — Grier, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 41. If to an action brought in the name of a p.atentee for the benefit of a licensee, a release from the patentee is set up, the plaintiff may file a replica- tion setting up the license, the bringing of suit for the benefit of the licensee, notice to the defendants of such license and its recording prior to the release, want of power to give the release, and that it was given without the consent and authority of the licensee. Good- year v. McBurney, 3 Blatchf., 33. — Nel- son, J. ; N. Y., 1 853. 42. In an action for infringement on a reissued patent, proof of use of the thing patented during the interval be- tween the original and reissued patents will not defeat the action. Uattin v. Taggert, 17 How., 84. — McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 43. The question of diligence, under § 15 of the act of 1836, has application to the case of a prior inventor by way of defence, where a subsequent inventor '^H^ S.-, '"*«*i, W'mm >^^^^^: |MW- n»iml» or in other wonlH to t\w inven- tion. Jiinna v. Woodruff', 4 Wa«li., 52. — Wasuinuton, J.; Pa., 1821. 2. It is an infringoniont of a patent for a design to atlopt the design so as to produee substantially the saino ai)pear- nnce. It is not necessary to adopt tlie design in every partieuhir. Hoot v. Bull, 4 INIcLean, 180, 181.— McLkan, J.; Oiiio, 1840. 3. Where letters patent were issued under the act of 1842, for a "new and ornamental design for figured silk liut- tons" — the design consisting, 1st, of the contignration of the mould or block, it having radial indentations, and forming the foundation of the button, .and capa- ble of being varied in figure as desired ; and 2d, of winding such block with silk, in the manner described, so as to luiike buttons of different hues and com- binations of colors; and the chxim was for "the radially formed ornaments on tlio face of the mould of the button, combined with the mode of winding the covering of the same, substantially as set forth," Held., that the invention was for " a new and origin.-il design for a manufacture," under § 1 of such .act — a design for the manufacture of an orna- mental button. Booth v. Garclly, 1 BLitchf., 248, 249.— Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1847. 4. Held also, that as the specification did not describe the process of winding the silk, that the patent did not cover or embrace such process, but was for the arrangement of the different colored threads ui the process, so as to produce the radially formed ornaments on the face of the button. Ibid., 249. 5. Whether the sale of such buttons, before the application for a patent, would atnount to an abandonment, w.as held to be a (piestion of fact to be set* tle- '^ t4l DISCLAIMKll, A, WIIKN I'UOI'KU; WHAT TO OONT.UX; KfrBCT Of. '<»■ clainuT of nil titio under tho first pnt- uiit to tli«i iiiiik>rial piirtri of tlio inven- tion for whieh it wiih f^runted, would not o|i«>nite iih an estoppel to any remedy wliieli mit^lit Ite prosecuted for a viola- tion of that patent ; t/iien/. Trcadirrll V. Miifin, 4 Wasli., 700.— Wasiiinu- Tox, J.; I'll., 1827. 2. A disclainter at tlie close of ft spp- eiiieation, estops tlie patentee from set- tiui^ up ;iny privileye to the part dis- olainu-d. Wlittnry v. Emntttty JJald., ;U:}.— Uai.owin, J.; I'a., 1831. 3. Tln^ disclaimer mentioned in ^ 7 of tho act of Ks;i7, applies solely to suits pendiuj; when the disclaimer is filed ; and the disclaimer mentioned in § of the same act, applies solely to Biiils hroiiujlit after such disclaimer is filed. Wyith v. Htohv, 1 Story, 204. — Stouy, J. ; MasR., 1 840. 4. Sonhlc, That a disclaimer, under § 7 of the act of 18:17, should not only disclaim what is not claimed as new, but flhoiild also distinctly Bet forth Avhat part i,i the invention is still claimed, as it is manifestly desi}j;iied to act as a new Bpecification. Ijippincott v. KcUy^ 1 West. Law Jour., 515. — Iuwin, J. j I'a., 1844. 6. Under § 7 of the act of 1837, the disclaimer must state the interest of the person disclaiming. But Avherc an administrator, in whose name a patent had been extended, entered a disclaim- er, stating that he was the j>atentee, and referring to the i)atent as showing his interest, it was held suflicient. lirooks V. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 430. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1844. 6. §§ 7 and 9 of the act c 1837, au- thorizing a disclaimer, do not apply where a patent is for a combination of parts. Batten v. Clayton,, 2 Whar. Dig., 413.— Kaxe, J. ; Pa., 1848. 7. .\ disclaimer inuHt lie properly proved before it can be admitted in (>v ideiico, either ua tin original paper or by a certified copy. And if adniiiicl in evidence, it must have given to it the full clfect of a diKclaimer, under J} 7 of the act of 1837. Foote v. SihUy^ \ IMatchf, 450, 401.— Nia80N, Conkmx, JJ. ; N. Y., 1840. 8. Where, therefore, a eoj)y of a dis- claimer, indorsed on a patent, but not proved to have been executed by tho patentee, was offered in evidence by tho defendant, not as a disclaimer, but as a confession that the plaintitrs invention was not new, and that ho was not tho original inventor of all claimed in liJD specilicatioii, //tW, that it must ho proved, before it could be admitted in evidence; and must be read as a disclaim- er, if at all. Ibid.,, 460, 401. 9. Where a disclaimer was tiled by tho patentee himself, setting out that it was " to operate to the extent of the interest in said letters j)atcnt vested in the pat- entee," Held,, that it fairly enough im- ported on itfiface that the patentee was the owner of the entire interest in tlio patent, and if so, there was a suhstan tittl compliance with the statute, us to the Btatemeiit of interest. /i/(/., 449, 401. [Affirmed, ;)Oj»M 2.] 10. A patentee has a right to dis- claim any thing whieh has been claimed through "inadvertence or mistake;" but when a p.atentee claims any thing as his own, courts cannot reject tho claim, though tho inventor himself may dis- claim it. i\irker v. Scars, MS. — Gkiek, J.; Pa., 1850. 11. But a disclaimer is necessary only where the thing claimed without right is a material and substantial part of the thing invented. If the part not new is not essential to the machiiic, and ''>^: DISCLAIMKU, n. 940 ■rrKCT or vumr on niolkct ix raiwo. wiiH t>i>t intrtxliK'nl into tho pntoiit tlir wiiiit of II (liNtliiiiiMT nllnrilM no ground for inMilir, tlu« party gtnted tliiit h(! wiiH tliu piitt-ntt'c, and w tiling Huid in roHpoot to u triuiMftT of niiy part of it, tlu; fair proHuniption is, tliat ho Htill ownH tho whole ; and it is amillirii'iit coniplianco with tlic statuti' as to Htatiiiff his intcrcHt, to nay " that such disclaimer is to operate to tho ex- tent of liis interest tiierein." SUshij v. Foote, 14 How., 221. — Cuhtis, J. ; Snp. Ct., 1852. 13. Tho law rt'tpiiringand perniiftinfjj a patentee to diselaini is not penal but remedial. It is intended for tho protec- tion of tlio patentee as well as the pub- lic, and should not receive a construc- tion that would restrict its operation within narrower limits than tho words of the law fairly import. O' licUhj v. Mom', 15 IIow., 121.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 18.53. 14. Whether, therefore, a patent is iliej>fn- /n'ltmn v. Fnike, MS. — S'upm.vn, J.; N. v., 1801. B. Kkpkct of Dki.ay or Nkcilkct IN Kll.INO. 1. Under g of tho act of 1837, It is a ^ood defence, both at law and in e(pji- ty, in every suit Itrought upon a pat«'nt, to secure tho rights granted thereby, that there has been unreusonable neg- lect or delay to file a disclaimer, whero one is necessary. Wt/tth v. St! n ill j^^^^\. ;w-wj^': 3A0 IMSCLAIMKII, P. RrrMiT or itKr.AV mt nkolki't in rmnu. to outer A iIlMcl.'tifiii'i', iirii1t>r ^ of tlio n<'l ctf IH.'IT, (Mil"* ulVtlu' |»:iti'iiti'(> frniii alt the lii'iiflitM of ;liat Hoctioii, not on)}' tliut lio hIiuII not r<>(' )Vi>r cuMtH, hut th:it lu'Himll Imvc no riifli. of lu'lion. ///•"oX'.t V. Hirhiilt,:\ M«'laiin, HI).— M» Kican, J.; ()liu», IHU. 7. Wliiit irt nil unrciiHoiiiibIc duliiy to outer a (ii?*c'lainu>r, in a inixcil (|u*'Mtioii of law and tact, to lu> (U'ciilcil l»y tin' jury, uii'lcr the iuMtructioii of tliu court. /A/*/., 411). H. liCMH vi;jllan('() will l)t> ro(|uir»Ml from an inlininii^trator than iVoni the ori^jc'nial patt'iiliM'. /fiitf., 4"iO. i). Tht> liliii;; of the tlisclainicr aiithor- izoil by 15 7 of I ho act of JH:i7, will not nfVi'ft any ;ictioii lu'iidintj at the tinif <»f thi' fllinir of siiih (lisflainM'r, except in respect to the (pieslion of nnrc.asonahle iiejjh'cf <»r tlelay in liliiif the net of Ism, the filinir of a disclaimer by a ])atentee who has bv mistake, Ac., claimed somethmii: of which he was not the inventor, is not a condition precetlent to obtaininjjj the benetits of such act. lie loses that only bv an unrcasoiHiItlr delav in liliiiff such disolaiiiier. ITotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 De- nio,318,— McKissocK, J. ; N. Y., 1848, 12. Where a patentee has uninten- tionally and without fraud claimed as a part of his invention something which was not original, but has unreasonably neglected to lile a disclaimer of such part, lie eaimot recover under 8 7 of the act of lH:i7, in un uclinti for illfrill^<^ inent, even if the defendant has in. tVinged the parts u{' his invention wlmli are new. J'lirkrr \, Sfilt'i^, t\ Mcl.t.ui, .^tJ.— Lkaviit, J.; Ohio, IH4(). i;t. If a tlistilaimer is enterud hetbre suit instituted, the plaintilV r((;ov«>rH costs in the usual way, independirit nf any <|uestion of disclaimer. I bit if in the progress of the trial it turns ihii, that n disclaimer ought to h ivi> bfoii made as to a |iart of what is elainiiMJ, the plaint itl' may recover, but will iiol be «'ntitled t«) costs. JInH v. UVA.f, 'j niatchf., lltH.— -Nki.hon,.!.; N. V., iHr.i, 14. I'nder ^ t) trial tl>at \w 'ih cntitlt'il to lit* |troUH'l(><| in a |m >rlioii df hin claiiiiH, lint not ill Mxpcct to niioflMT pnrlinn, lu- JH Ktill <>ntill*M| to tJaiim^t'M tor tli<> viola. tiiat<'nt, llu'ii tho wlioN' [>'il»'nt. is iiinprrativo. /f>i, aiitl ItroiijKlit Huit for an infi'iti,^(>iii<-iit of it, and tltoro were nu- incrouM trials, tlio last of which was in IH.Vt, upon which a (picstioti arosi* as to tilt' iriic coiistnictioii of onu of the ciniiiis, whether the Hanio was ntnv, but Hiuli claim was not ono <>f the issues iit controversy, and Mich claim was held, on error, not to la* new, J/eld, tliat under the cirtuimstances of the cnso, the patoMtce was not pfuilty of unroasonahle lit'lay in makinj^ the disclaimer, and that such delay w;ih a (pnstiini of law for the court lo<« daims more than liu has invented or is entitled to, his p.atent will still lie good for what he has in< \cnted, provided he enters a ilisclaiiner of what hu has included in his patent which lie has iiot inventei/ v. /'oiite, 20 llww., 38. — Nklmon, J.; Sup. Ct., IH.^7. 2.'). Where the oviilenco going to show that the invention waH not now was introduced on thi' trial of a feigned issue in lb.')!, and the (pie>tioii of nov- elty hud been in controversy from that time to 1H57, nnd no disclaimer had been ent(!n d, //77, that \itider tlie eir- eiunstanccs, there had not b( en such an unreasonable Sinijrrv. llW/zia/cy, MS.— GlLK«, J.; Md., 185S). Ct AssiONKK, Rkjiit of under, axd TO MAKE. 1. If a patent has been previously as- signed in part, and a disclaimer has been filed by the patentee alone, such dis- claimer will not operate in favor of the assignee, in m^ i>uit, tiither at luw or %.-.^ Kx '«>»■»' a^' "•Elf 9St IMCnoNAUIKii. *tv— DIM OVKilV or fllfTtllilHT IN, WNAt Wi WIUT f«TRNT*III.R. f«|iiiljr, iiiili'MM Iii> liiiM JdiiMMl hi it. Ify Hh V. »S/i»/«», I ^^^»»ry, *iU4.-H'ii»MV, ,1.; MltHH., IHIO. 'J. A «liMi'l:iiini>r ol' purl ul' mi iiivcii- lion t'litiMtti iiUVi'l II |triiir ^niiid'o iimli'i- lli«> piitt'til, iiiilcMM hi* ti«vi'|ilii oi° il ; h«< limy r«'(\iH»' ).» Iii> ttlVciloii |»y jr. Smith lA irtyr, I t'liii. I aw .Iniir., ft;t|.— Ka!«k, .1. ; Ph., \H\i\. 9. Ihiilir {} 7 nl' tlio not n( |H.'I7. tho i>«viu*r i>t'u N'l-tiotiiii iiittTi'Mt in ii ptif niiiv niiiltc II iliMt'l;iini« cuiiHiil lul itM n part of lh«< ori^iirtl piilt'iit, tlio I'xlrnl of hiM intt'ri'Nl ; Iml lli«> p fiitt'c Ih not t'oiiiprlli'il to join in h (liNi'iaii M>r, nor will it iilVtil any one I'i'pl liiiii niiikinj^ it, iiihi iIiohc cltiiiii iiMiiiT him. I\>thr v. //ol/iind, MS Nklmon, iNUKitMoi.t, .n.; I't., IHftrt. ii)Mi>ii,or ii, t\ m\h Ni'i|U('iil <'on)|iili>r t'liiiiioi rinplo> kutinirli of ri prior iirraii^ri'iiirnl ami iiiali'iialit im to hIiow n HiilMtniiiiiil inviiMion of tli,. DICTU)N AUIKS, UAZKITKK *vc. 1. Some »imilariliof«, am] Homo ust prior woi kf*, I'Vi'ii t»> (li»' fopyiii); of Niiiall partH, arc lol«>rali>(l in Hiirli luiokM an «lirlion!iri»'H,jra/,«'tto«'rH, jjramniar^inapH, aril linuM it's, almaiiafs, coMcorilanccM, ry- clopu'ilias. iiiiiiMarii's, jjiiitK' hooks, aii*l Hiinilar publu'atioiiM, if tlu< main iloNipi nml oxt'i'ution iiro in rcalitv tiovt'l ami ll'lll tho lorii new l.r and , to hill pat 4. m-li to a I'X ticlii 111),' Into »._ Hior MCIIH proi root iU>ri s. of ii>r, anri/,t'i| by 'iii)ii}{|| or iiiip"oviw |miI talriil,aml iicu property ainl ri^liiM lit* litMi fompilcr. //>ii/., ftl4. TliiiH a material aihlilioti U tnnili> fommon iliolionary, wliit-li nIwiIIiiiIiI iiitioiiM of a lai'fji* iiiimlK'r of \\tn,\^ tn* omitti'il ; or quotations Ituni au- H, who hav«' iMiiployi'il woi-iIh in th,. (« aiiopt«< pr('r innciation of cai'li wor N from whii-li tho wtint has hini VO.I. If)iiLt>l4. imi>rov«'( an< 1 not il iiHMo oovcr for important piracu's. '.' Woo.l. A Mill,, .M;i. — Wooom ky, M ISS. l.'^4 7. '2. In oompilinpf Huoh works, tho ma ti'vials of all, to a considoralilo «'xli>iit, must ln' the samo, ami to mu*Ii i-xtcnt arc allowable ; ami tho novolty or im- provemonl can lio substantial in scarcely any case, unless tho matter is abriilgod, or a material chantjo made in the ar- raHjjcmont, or more uiodcrn infonuatii u ! a machine embodied and reduced to PTS(H)VKUY. I. A discovery of some ih'w princi|)l(', theory, eh-iiii'iitary truth, or an iinpnivi'- meiit upon it, abstracted from its a|i|i|i. cat inn, is not a new invention. M'/iitm;/ V. J'tHmitf, Uahl., all. — Baldwin, J.; Ta., lH;tI. 'J. I>ut when such dlscovorv IS np- plied to any practical purpose, in the new construction, operation, or eH'ccIs of m.ichinery or composition of niiittcr, producing a new subst:mce; or an oiil one 111 a lU'w way, l»y m-w iiiacluiiiTy, or by a new coinbiiiation of the parts of an old ono opcratim; in a peculiar, bettor, cheaper, or quicker nu'thod; a new mechanical employincnt of |irinci- pie already known ; tho organi/ation of DISCOVKUV. WIUT IN. AWIl WHAT fATHNf* 2A3 priD'li''*' "II ""iiK'ilili'K vinili|l>, IttMuilih*. Vi'lltlil'I'S '»•"' ''"«'i'i i piillio lii'W IIMmIi' <(t' |)l'l(i'lirllll) ('lll|>lii) \f\y^ liiiiniiii nrl kimI itkill -it in n " diN I'ovi'ry," "liivonlinti," or "impmvi' iiM-nl," willilii llu) lU'ln of ruiij^n-NH. 3. ir It |tiitt'ht In ioi- n iIiH«'uv«'ry, il niiiNl l»' ('•»' ••otiM'tliiti^ nt'W, not fur itii iiii|iio\i'iii('iit only ; nirli item iihihI Im> A iii'W iiivciiiion, and tlitt iliNcoxriy iiiukI iioI iiiil ill u iiiiitiM-ial |»art. Jftiil., 31». 1. Tiitlrr tin* «'on«fitnfion titnl laws of iIm' I'nilftl Shitt'M ri'H|HTlinj; patnilH, (linrDnri/ in ?<\ nonynioMM willi hn'rnlinn. Kiiiii">\ AV fxirti, MS. (App. I'liM.) - CiiAN.ii, til. .1.; I). ('., »HM. f». No (liHfovcry will nilitlo tim iliw- rovt'rtT to a pat«/(/. (J. Thi' tlist'ovory of u ih'w vffwi Hnit of diHeo>ery; a machine of invi'n' lion. Citrnlntf v. /litftlm, ir» How., '^(17. (iitiKK, .1.; Sup. Hi., IHA.'I. 11. One may dineover an lm|irove- ment in a proeesN, irrcMpeeiive of any parlienlar form of nniehinery ; and anotli«>r may invent a labor-Navin;^ mn- ehine by which the operation or pro- ceNN may be performed, and each may be entitled to a patent. Ifiiil., 'Jtl7. I'i. Tho dincovery that a refune or WoiiineMri material onn bo advanta){e< ously applied to a new purpose, if that reHult is owini; to the presence in such refuse material of certain in^redionts or sidtslanci'S which had belbro Ix'en used, but in a dillereiit way, for the name purpose, is not a patentable inven- tion. Afiiulr, I'Jx pnrtf, iMS. (App. Cas.) — MousKi.i, .1.; I). (J., lHft3. |:». The mere discovery of (> fact, nn, in Sickles' invention, derivinjj power for thc^ tripping of thi! valve from tho (•(•centric Hlrap, or from any otlusr niov- in;» part of tho ('iif^lne not controlled by the litVinj^ rod, does not constitute tho Hubjc(;t of a patent, thoui^h the idea may be xww. The new set of ideas, in order to becromo patontabh-, must bo embodied into working mat^hinery, and adapt(!d to pra(^tical use. tSicAirs v. linrden, :\ lUatclif., b'AH. — Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 14. It iH this einbodinu.-nt and opcr- ation of nmdiincry for practical pur- poses whi(d> furnish beneficial vosults to tho public, and render tho discovery patcntablo. Ibid. 538 -•^■JjjjlUM*, ^1 r:>;r^*^ ^S?fe=: 254 DOUHLK I'SK. WHAT IH; WIIEV I'ATi:M'AI1I,K. H- rf' "tSJi !Wj! 7 DOUHLK USE Sco also New Aiti.ication. 1. The mofttiiiipf of the rulo 1 ii\ Ji. Ji., 2 Sto- ry, 410, that anew application is not entitled to protection, is, that the appli- cation of an old machine or oM compo- sition of matter, before patented, to a ne^v ohjeot, or what i; termed a double use, does net entitle one to a patent connected with the new object, because there is no new n:achuiery, or new cond)ination of old j>arts. Jlotc/i- kiss V. Oreefiwood, 11 How., 270. — Woonni'UY, J.; (Dis. Opin.), Sup. Ct., 1850. 2. J>ut it is entirely dilK'rcnt if one apply nn old eartli, or old meclianieal pow e" .)r old principle in physics, to a new object. There is then a now form adopted, or a new condonation lor the j)urpose — a new shape, consistencj', ;ind U80 given, or a Jiew modus opcram/i, which, if cheaper and better, berieiits the world and deserves protection. Ibid., '270. 3. If thes0 arc the eftects, however small the skill or ingenuity to imitate them, tliey are not excluded from the aid of the laws. They are not mere double uses of a previous composition or machine, but a double or additii»nal form or composition of an article for a now purj)ose. Ibid., 270. 4. A mere analogous use is not pat- entable ; but where a new or improved manufacture is produced, by new con- trivances, combinations, or arrange- ments, a new 'principle may be consti- tuted, and the api)lication or practice of old things will be new also, /Smit/i, II. Z., 7'Jx jxirfc, MS. (App. ('as )— Mou- tsKi.i, J.; I). ('., lH.>;t. 5. Where the change in a nmcliino consists in the einpl«)yment of an ohvi. ous substitute, the (liscovery and aiull. cation of which could not have involvnl the exercise of the inventive faculty in any considerable degree, thc^ clianjri, will be treated mert'ly as an unsul»Htaii- tial, colorable variation, or doiibjo use and not patentable. I'Jocrxon <('; liintnl Ex pttrtc, MS. (App. Cas.) — .Mousiiij,, J.; 1). C, 1855. (I. Though then' may be in a new aii- plication some degree of novelty, soino- ihing may have been discovered or found out that was not known before, yet unless the new occasion on which the principle is a])plied leads to somo kind of new manufacture, or some new- result, it will be but a double use. lilt t lid y. Ex parte, IMS. (App. Cas.)— MousKM., J. ; D. C, 185H. ^ 7. Where the principle t)f the a'loged invention has been disciovered and ap- plied before, the application will be what is callcil !i double use. Ibid. 8. Where there is nothing new in tho principles involved in an invention, and nothing new in the form or character of the instrumentalitios by whidi it is ^ applied, the new ajiplication is but an analogous use, and is not the subject of a patent. Alien, Ex parte, !MS. (App. Cas.)— ^Ikhuick, J.; D. C, isc.o. 9. The application of substantially the same uieans to produce the same result, in a dilferi-nt form, as tid)es and double walls hi a grain bin, the same having i)een before used in cribs and kilns, is t)nly a double use, and not patentable. Marsh, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.1— MousKM., J.; D. C, 18G0. 10. The substitution of a jewel iu place of glass in a sewing machino, to wt) !l5| m DIJAMAI'IC COMI'OSITIOX. 256 iiidirT or AUTHOR ou i'Koi'Uiktoh in. i)ri'V('iit iViction in tho j»iissu<;o (»f the tliiTiul, ift not patt'iitahU' ; it is but tlic (loul)lo uso of an old contrivance, willi no now cllcct or rewult. /i>rri/, Ejt, jxirti', .MS. (App. Cas.) — Mousiiu., J.; D.C IHOO. 11. The niakiniif of an instrnmcnt of two clilVcrcnt Hubstanoes, a« an liydro- iiu'tcr of iinlia-rnbbcr ami silver — the bulb bein}j;t)f bard rubb((r and the<;rad uated scale of silvor or metal — if a use- ful result or eflect is sccure. Cas.)— MoKSKM., J.; I). C, IHOO. 12. The double use to whii-b .an arti- \ clo of manufacture is applied or applic- al'le is not agrounerson * writing the drama was the proper per- son to take out the copyright, and that the employer had no right or intA'rest in it except the privilege of having it performed at his theatre. Ihld., 400. 7. An assigiu;o of the exclusive right of acting and representing ji drama in certain plui :es, may maintain an action in his own name, even aller a represen- tation by him, for an injunction to j)rc- vent its being represented by another within such places. Ibid., 400, 401. 8. And such action may be maintain- ed, although tho author or assignee lias only tiled bis title-page, and has not pub- lished the work or play. Ibid., 401. [Contra, ^KW< 14.] 9. A legislative enactment securing generally to l^^srary proprietors a copy- right for a lii:..te^^^ ^%i *«»(•<}' W '««>., ii !l!*il liif^ *<*! ?!l!l^ ;«ii( :%;; '^:, UKgi'iHiTKH of; how c()N8II>khki>; ok what kvidknck. copyri<;ht, 1h a imblication whicli legal- izes a Nubsi'ciiient tlieatrical rcprcHciita- tion l)y any body i'roin sucli copy. Kcene V. W/iectlcy, Amor. Law Keg., 44. — Cai)WAU,ai)EK, J. ; Pa., 18G0. 11. go of the act of 1831, giving re- drcHS for the unauthorized printing or publishing of manuscripts^ operates in favor of a resident of the United States, who has acqtiired the proprietorship of an nii2^rinted literary composition from a non-resident alien author. Ibid.^ 45. 12. Hut this section — and which is the only one enabling a proprietor who derives his title from sucli an author to assert any right imder the act — gives no redress for an unauthorized theatri- cal representation. Ibid., 45. 13. The only act which affords re- dress for unauthorized theatrical repre- sentations is the act of August 18, 1856 ; but this only applies to cases in which copyright is effectually secured under the act of 1831. Ibid., 45. 14. The assignee of a dramatic com- position cannot maintain an action for its unauthorized representation by others, unless he has performed all the acts re- quired by law to secure a copyright, in- cluding the deposit of a printed copy. The observance and performance of all the statutory requirements except the deposit of a printed copy, will give no right of action under the statute. Ibid., 45, 46. DRAWINGS. 1. Drawings annexed and referred to in the specihcation, constitute a part thereof; and they may be resorted to to aid the description, and to distinguish the thing patented from other things known before. Eitrle v. Saicger, 4 Mas. I). — Stoky, J.; Mass., 1825, 2. If the exjilanations of the Hpocill- cation call for the drawings, and refei to them as a component part in the de- scription, they are just as nnich a purt of the specification as if they wore placed in the body of the specification Ibid., 10. 3. Under the patent law of IVn.l, § 3 requiring drawings with written refer- ences, drawings when so annexed to the specification become part of the toritten description of the invention. Ibid., 11. 4. The drawings may bo referred to and used with the specification to niaku a machine, but the model cannot he re- ferred to for such purpose. Grant v. Mason, 1 Law Int. & Rev., 23. — Thom- son, J. ; N. Y., 1828. 5. The drawings of a patent may not only be referred to for the purpose of aiding a specification which would other- wise be imperfect, to support the pat- ent, but may .also be resorted to by the opposite party to explain any thing doubtful or ambiguous in the written description, or for the purpose of show- ing that the machine in question is not the same as that for which the patent was granted. Burrall v. Jewett, 2 Paige, 143. — Walworth, Chan.; N. Y., 1830. 6. References to the drawings, men- tioned in § 6 of the .act of 1836, are not requisite to the validity of a patent, un- less they are necessary to an under- standing of the invention. Brools v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 261.— McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1843. 7. The description of a machine or improvement accompanied by a draw- ing, may in many cases be understood without references. Ibid., 262. ""?tr '^•ftr. DRAWINGS. 257 RKQUI8ITES Of; HOW 0ON8IDKKED; OP WHAT KVn)KN('E. 8. It 18 not noccHsary tliat drawings ehouUI 1)0 referred to in tlie spcfillfii- tion, and without such references tliey will 1)0 treated as a part of it, and may be referred to to show the nature, char- acter, and extent of the elaini, as well aa to make a part of the description. Wttshlmrn v. Gould, 3 Story, 13;}, 138. — SroRV, J.; Mass., 1844. 0. Drawings may also be referred to for the purpose of adding something to the fipecification or claim not spocitically contained or mentioned therein — as to describe or show the existence of rol- lers in a machine, when they are not described in the specification. Ibid, 139. 10. The drawing is a part of the pat- ent, and may be referred to in order to help out the description. ]}ut it need not delineate old m.ichinery connected with the new invention, when no change in such old machinery enters into the new invention. Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatchf., 9.— Betts, J. ; N. Y., 1845. 11. It is questionable whether under § 3 of the act of 1Y93, the specification must contain written references to the drawings. It is sufficient if the paten- tee puts on file with his specitit fion drawings and wriiten references, with- out their being menrnied in the speci- fication, and if the ri -rences required are written on the dr. vings, the stat- ute is satisfied. Ibid., , 10. 12. Whera a patent was obtained in 1834, the original of which and the drawings were destroyed by fire in 1836, and the patentee, under the act of 1837, in 1841 filed a copy of his pat- ent and deposited a drawing, which, however, was not verified, but which he verified in February, 1844, and sub- sequently in March, 1844, considering Buch copy imperfect, filed another and 17 a fulK'r drawing, and commenced suit in May, 1844, Jlehf, that a certififd copy of such second copy was properly received in evidence in such 'iction. Ibid., 11. 1 3. The drawing performs in part tho office of a model, tliat may at any time be constructed for tlie purpose of illus- trating and giving application to con- trivances which may be obscure or only ii)riii!il uinl uiisulistjiutial. 2\ith(nn v. Lt: A'c//, 2 IJhiti'hl'., 492.— NkiSon, J.; N. V., 1852. 12. Such now ofTi'ct, however, to fjflvt' materiality and importance t«) the aji- parently formal ehan^jje, must not (^mi- flist in doin^ inoru work in a given time, or with a roiluced amount of power, but tho new effect must l)e dif- ferent in kind. Hiid.y 41)2. 13. The mere fact that a ma(^hiiie constructed and arran' a beneficial n-sultor effect that a palcni is granted, and not for the result or effi'ct itself. Corning v. Jiurdm, IT) H., 2(1H.— CiiiKK, J.; Sup. Ct., ls.'.;i. IH. A patent mjiy be granted for tin- use of a known thing, in a known mamu>r, t(» produce effects alre.-idy known, but producing those eficcls so as to be more economically or hi im Jicitdly enjoyed by the ])id)lic. Sidi y, E.r parte, 3IS. (App. Cas.) — Mokski.i., J.; I). C, 185.). It). He M'ho discovers tliat a certain useful H'sult will be produced in .'iiiy art, machine, manufiicture, or coniposi tion of matter, by tho use of certain means is entitled to a patent for sucli discovery, provided he sets forth in his si)ecifieation tho moans he uses to j)ro- duce sui'h useful result, so that any one skilled in tho art, <&c., can, by usiiiir tho means specified, Avithout any ad- dition or subtraction from them, j)ro- duce precisely the result he describes. If this cannot be done by the means he describes, the patent is void. Amer. Pin Co. v. Oakville Pin Co., 3 A. L. K., 137; 3 Blatchf., 192.— Inokusoll, J.; Ct., 1854. 20. And it makes no difl'erence whether the effect is produced by clieni- icid agency or combination, or by the application of discoveries or principles in natural philosophy, known or un- known, before his invention ; or by machinery acting together upon me- chanical principles. Ibid., 137, 192. 21. But every one may lawfully ac- complish the 8.ime end, and Avithout in- fringing the patent, if he uses means substantially different from those de- cribed. Ibid., 137, 192. 22. The patent does not secure to the 'M: ^ M^t^^ KQurrY, A. 201 JUHIHDICTION AH TO OOPYRiOIITI ANn MANUHOniiTS. pali'iili'i' tlio roHiilt or I'flect prodiiccil, only tlic) iiu'aiiH dt'scribcd, l»y whi«'li piicli risHiilt or iflU'ct is pnKliicetl. All otlior iiH'iHis to i»r<)iluc«f the' Kiiiiu- cUc'cl, and not pati'iiti'd to any om>, arc opi-ii to tlu! puhUc. //>/(A, 13a, 102. 23. If a patentee in the original in- ventor of a dovic'o to aerotnpli.sh a par- ticular result, he may claim an exclusive ri;;ht to the use of it; but otherwise, if ho is not such t)riginal inventor, hut only of a cond)ination of such device wilii others. Cdrr v. liice^ 4 IMutchf. — Nklbon, J.; N. Y., 1858. 24. If a new and nseful resnlt is produced, neither the simplicity of the structure nor the greater or less .amount of invention or intellect employed as an clement, are of itnportancein determin- ing the validity of the ])atent. Teeae v. P/ii'fpK, 1 McAllis., 40. — McAu,isTKii, J.;CaI., 1855. 25. An end or result produced is not secured by the patent, but only the sub- stantial means used auW '%#i||yr^- Ffr- iir,,S.. ^k i^*^ ^' JfUmDICriON AH Til OUPVMUIini ANt> MANI'IU-HIITN. ''^t-i^ t-J \. Ah to CilI'VltltiHIH ANI» AlANir. Ht'KII'lH. Sfi« al.so AnioNrt, A,; I>iiAMATic C'oMi'oHii'ioNH ; In.ii'N(Tionh, a. 1. At cointnoii law t1i«> ri^^lils of an assi^nco «)f II iu:iiiUHcri|ii \vt>ul pro- Icih'd l>y uOoiirt of CliaiU'tTy. W/ieat- i»i V. /'rV. rjf, H IVt., 001. — McLkan, .1. ; t. I't., lH;tl. 2. TIiIh is pivHunu'd to bo tln« "oopy- riijlit" ro('opiiz«'tl in J} 1 of tho act of 17!K), and wITu-h was intondiMl to lii' protcoti'd hy its provisions, and this l»ii)ti'»"ti<>n was jj;ivi'n as woil to bo^ks piiblishi'd undor sncli finMitnstani'os, as to niannsi'iipt copios. /AAA, 00 1. H. Wlu'i-o a wroni; has bcm fonunit- tod in ivspt'Ct to a literary work, bnl the bill dooH not ask for an injnnction to protect tho connnon law riiflitsof tho author, or tho violation of any fopyrijjht Hoourcil, but only a>*ks a!i account, re- dress cannot bo sou<;ht in a court of ctpiity, but tho party must proceed ut law lor dainajjcs. Monk v. JLti'/xr, l) Edw. Ch., 110, HI.— McC't.uN, V.C'h., X. Y., 1><;17. 4. A Court of C'hanccrv assumes ju- risdiction to restrain tho i)ubIication of juivate letters on no other ])rinci]tle :ind upon no broader ground than that of coi>yright in literary jMoductions, or n jiropcrty in the paper on which they are written, similar to property in stereo- typo or engraved plates. M^efi/iore v. Scorillv, 3 PMw. Ch., 527.— McCoun. V. Ch.;N. Y., 1842. 6. It will not exercise the power of preventing the ])ublioation of ])rivato letters of business on the ground of copyright or literary property, when they possess none of the attributes of literary composition. Ibid., 528. 0. On gonond ei|Mitabli' principhw, re lief may b«) given by aCoiu'l of Chan eery against one who lias surn-piiiiniix. ly gained possoHsiun of n nianusfript. Hiirflittv. (%-ittiiiifi )i, i IMcI.ean, ;io|. - Mrl.KAN, .J.; Ohio, IH47. 7. A coiM't of etpiity will not alteiii|i|. to restrain the |iidilicalion of private letters on tho grnun*l of protecting lit «'rary properly, when they possess no attribute of literary composition. I/ni/l V. Mi'Koizic^ ;i Marb. Ch.; ;i2.5.- \Vai, woKTii, Ch.in.; N. Y., 1H4H. H. Ill a suit iindtT the co|)yrighl acts, tho complainant must make out a title to sue under his copyright. The court cannot interfere to prevent tho use of the title of a work in fraud of the plain tit)', U)ion ]iriiiciples' relating to the good-will of trades. Jallh' wJik/. ,v, | lilatchf, 027.— Nki.son,.I. ; N. Y., is.-.o. 0. The net of Kebruary l.'i, ls|!», .s,, tar as it gave cognizance to the courts of the rnited Stales in cases of copy- rights, still remains in force, and is ihc only law conferring oipiitable jurisdic- tion on these courts in such eases; jj i) of the !ict of lS:n protects mamiserlpts only. Stevens v. O'lttdifin;/, 17 lluw., 4.').''..— Cuims, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 10. The oipiity Jurisdiction of such courts, as to co])y rights, does not ox- tend to tho adjudication of forfeitures; a decree therefore cannot be eiitertd for tho penalties incurred for tho violation of a copyright. Ibid.,, 455. 11. It is doubtful whether, under the act of 18H1, as to copyrights, the courts of tho United States can exorcise juris- diction, by way of injunction, to pre- vent the publication of private letters, contrary to the wishes of the wiiter. Woolsey v. Jmhl, 4 Duer, ;J82.— Di ku, J.; N.Y., 1855. 12. A court of equity cannot intcr- "n '■:ir' ■Hw*,. KQnTV, U. I. 20a At TU l-ATKNIHi UENNHAL JUMMMUTION. fun* to prevent tliu piililinition of pri vnt*> IftttTN, on the ^^'niiiiid that Niirli II |)itl)li('!it ion, wil lioiit llio roiiHcnt of t lie writci't ■'^ <^ Itrt'ikfli of foiiliilriico ami |i()ii(ii'al)lu feeling, liiid is «laii){t>n)UN to till' |ii>a('t> anil uioralHof tho coninniiiily. Il,i,f., :ih:i, :ih 4. i:i. Kut llio author lias hiicIi an ex- ('IuhIvo ri^lit in hin mainimM'ipt at com- iiKHi law aH I'litilh'H liiMi to dt'tcnninc for irnnF«'lf u hetlirr it nliall l)(> pul)lisli('i| nt all ; and wlien tliis t-Xfltisive ri^lit. is ill danger of hcinf; victlalcd, ii court of ('(|uity irt lioiind to prevent the wron^ by iiijiliK'tiitn. //>/ Anier. Law Keg., 47. — Cadwai.i.adkk, J.; l*u., 1800. II. As TO Paticvtm. 1. General Jurmliction. Sco also, Fkignkd Issuk ; Injunc- noN, H. 1. Under the act of IHOO, jurisdiction was given to tint (Circuit Courts of the United States in jiatont cases, only " in actions on the case." By the judiciary act of 17hO, such courts had no equity powers conferred on them, })etween cit- izens of tho sumo stute. LiDingston v. Van Inffen, 1 Paine, 48, 62. — Livin(J- STON, J.; N. Y., 1811. 2. Where, tlicrefore, u bill was filed for tlie infringement of u i)atent, and tho parties were uU residents of the Baine state, Held, that the court could not take cognizanco of such a case, and that the bill must bo dismissed. Ibid., 52, 54. .'t. Iliil whether, under such actM, if it became necessary in an action at law to appeal to their eipiity ^ide in aid or defence of such action, those coiirtM would not have the necesHary jiirisdiiv tion ; f/ini\i/. /fiid., ri;t. 4. The eipiity jurisdiction i-xcrciscd by the courts over patents for iini'ii- tioiiM, is merely in aid of the common law, ami in order to give more com- plett) elVecl, to the piu\isions of tho Htatiites under which tliepatini is grant- ed. Stdltoiin\. lied/lild, I I'uiiie, 440. — Tllo.Mi'SON, J. ; N. v., 1825. 5. Whether the complaiii.mt's patent is good and valid, so as ullim:itely to He(Mire to him the rights he claims, in not a question for decision upon the eipiity sid(( of the court. Hut the <;(pii- ty jurisdiction should never be exeicised but upon the supposition that the ap- plicant for the aid of the court, has a right \vhi(;h has been infringed by tho other l»arty. //fid., 44(i, 447. 0. The liict that the subject niatt(T of a contract sought to be enforccMl, is a patent-right, does not of itself give the courts of tho Uniti'd States juris- diction. A bill filed for a specific per- formance of such a contract, must con- tain the proper averments to show that the court has jurisdiction. Jiiiir v. Greijonj, 2 Taiiie, 42(5, 4'JO. — TiiOMf- su.v, .1.; N. v., 1K28. 7. If, in an assignnient of a j)atent, the invention or improvement conveyed is misnanied, tho deed is not a nullity, if it furnish suttlcient means for correct- ing tho mistake, and identifying the thing about which the parties intended to contract. The deed may be reform- ed in a court of ecjuity. Harmon v. Bird, 22 Wend., 115.— Biionson, J.; N. Y., 1839. 8. A court of equity will not intcr- '^'1i.»■*.^; 1 1 IUXl. 204 KQiriTV, n. 1. f >«- ^*« ^•iim :<..^ '**N. '^.?r AM m PATINTIi OKMIIUL JUtUMIOTION. frn* iti lirlialf of n |iat«'iit«'<', clfln'r to {(rniit iui iiijiiticlinti, or ^ivi- liiiii iiiiy ro- lift*, in i'i'M|)t'ct to an :illt>}{cil vlitliitioii of liiH piitrut, if after linvinj^ obtaiiu'il lus patent, lie Ii:>h Niirreni| to hiicIi use or n|i|tli»'iiti<>ti, or actsofflu' (leleiKlanls. ]\'i/(//i V. A/oz/f, 1 Story, 2H'.', iJ8 4.— Stokv, J. ; Mass., 1H40. 0. I'n.ler U)^ 10 ami 17 of thu aet of IP.'UJ, tlie Circuit (.'ourts of the I'liiled States have exehi>i\e (•(ijjjni/.anee of 8uits in e(jiiily, relative to inti-rferini; patentH, in easeH where the court is authorized to adjuilye and declare a patent inoper- ative or \(>'i I, either wholly or in pjirt, or in any particular portion of the I'nit- cd States. (iibson v. Woodicorth, 8 Pai<,'e, 134. WALVVOinii, Chan., N. Y.; 1840. 10. Wlu'ther such courts have exclu- fiive jurisdiction of every ease in which a right under the jtatent laws might come in (juostion collaterally ; or in cases except where, from the nature of the relief, their jurisdiction nuist neces- sarily be exclusivo; qmry. I hid., 134. 11. In .ail action at law, for a breach of a patent, it is in ml to a bill in e<|uity, filed for the specitic performance of a contract to transfer a jiat' t — the jurisdiction of suili court bei continid to actions under the pai- ciit l(tw8 gr.'iiititig or confirming rights to inventors, ^t smith \. VV<)oi)iiUKv, J.; Mass., I84fi. 1 '). If such a bill i8 filed agaitiBt sev- «'ral defeiulants, some of whom are resi- dents of the same state w ith the com- plainarits,the bill may still be niaintiiiiu'd against the del iidunts who are rc.-i- dents of another state. Ibid., 37. 1(J. And if such bill contain a prayer for an injunction against the use of the patent by all, this w(»uld be gr iinnt»r of I'ltlt'iitM, UM Hiich, iiml tilt* I'lttt'iil OiTit'i . Pftntlns V. J'JUtinnrf/i, .Mir. I'lt, Off., 36.-KANi)Ai,r„ J.; I'li., IHUI. (., Tlio jiuisdirlioii «-i>iilVTru(l upon iho Cii'fiilt Courts, ill piitcn' ouhch, by g 4 uf the act of IHiiO, iH ihu oiime, in itM iiittiii'K Hint «'X(tMit, itH tlii< i><|uity juristlicUiMi ill Kii^lainl, from wliich it jx ilurivi> :)Hto till*', tiiu Itill hikviii^r I)(ii t.'ikcii m (.()iif<'s--(il, HUc'liCdurtHliavy till' power to refer tliu ouhu to a iimHtcr to taku uiid Htnt»' ivn account of tli« profits inado )iy tlio (hiulunt l>y llio uho of tht; plain- tiffM iiivoiilitiii, instead of scinlin^ it to 1 court at law t(» asst'ss llio iiaiiva<^cH. .lltin V. /Hunt, 1 Blatchf., 480, 487.— N|.;r,«oN, J.; N. Y., 1840. 19. Wiicn- it is evident tliattlicloi^al ifli'ct iif a contract, as to a patent, uc- c'oniinj; lo the terms of it, is ditVercnt fiom tlie actual aj^roeinent madu at the time, hetweeii the ])arties, a court of i'(|uity would probably, upon a proper iipplication, direct tlic contract to be nfornicd by the insertion of a chiUHC to tho etVect chiimcd. Woodworth v. Cnok, 2 IMatchf., 168.— Nelsox, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 20. It is a well established rule in equity, that the matter entitling a party to an ameiidfnent of his contract, may beset up by way of ecpiitablo defence against a i)roceediiiL;, as to enforce ;i specilic performance, involvinj^ the lights of the parties under the instru- ment, and which would not have been inaintiiiiiahk» had the aixreement been as was iiitt!i(l( 1. Ibid., 158, l.')i). 21. But such contract cannot be re- t'orined where rights of a bona fide pur- I iia-i'i- have intervened, which would or iiiimlii be s( I .ously prejudiced by allow- ing Rfieh Contract to ^o rofoeinuil, or de> fence Hi>t lip. Itiid., \h9. 'i'i. A Huit in equity to obtain an in-- jiiiK'liMn to restrain jimci ed'u^H in an action at law, will n<>t be Miistained wIh'H the illlej^ations i=, t Mp a clefem «', ns fraud, \vhiorUi«ii. (iootl^ar v. /Any, MS.— 27. Tlu< piiliiit act of IH.10, I 17, COIlfcl-N Jlllitciil'tioll ill finily llfMIII llu* Cirriiit Comix irrin|u'«'li\t' of llu- ri^lil of llio |iliiiiilitr to an iiijtinrtinii, nr nt' Imh nti>iit liuy liiri) allc^t'il an iiitViii^ciin'tit ot' the |iati>nl lirlnif it i-x|iiri'r to tliu Itill, that tilt! court had juriHdii*- tion. //>/»/, H^. •J!». A i'uurt of »>i|ui(y will not pro- C(>ud .-iL^aiiiHt lilt' |iriiu>i|)lt's and Nurc- tics of an iiijiincliondMind to onl |)aytiu>nt of the datna^^cH HUMlaincd l>y TfaHou of iIm' iiijuiiclion. Tlio d«'(i'iid- ant must resort to an action at law on the boiid, Mtrnjjidd v. JomSy 2 C'nrt., 806. — CiruTlM, J. ; Mohm., lH.5a. 30. A mutual and reciprocal covenant of an aj^rcernciit n'spectin^ a patent, ha\in}{ been broken by one parly, he cannot obtain the aid of a court of equity to restrain the other covenanter from its violation. Cliitn v. Jlrrirn; 11 Mo. Law. Uei>., li'Jl. — Cuuris, J.; MaHH., 18.)((. 81. Otherwise, where the covenants are imk'pendent, or only collaterally connect! d, thouu;h in the sanie instru- ment; or where the breach is of such a nature that it may be fully rejiaireil, and one of the conditions prei-edent for ob- taining relief may be Kuch reparation. IbiiL, 392. 32. Where the covenant was, l)y the owners of a patent, that no right to use the invention should bo conveyed with- out the assent and concurrence of all thfMO liiti>ritiu>iit, cui|. not maintain a i'l II for an injunction to rentraiii the oilier covenanter from i\ oiinilar violation. //>il wantonly or vexatiously, but » court of etpiity can inilict no exemplary or puni- tive damages as u court of law ina\. Ihiil. 3B. A patentee whoHo invention is only valuable because used by all wlio pay a license fee, and who sulicrs no other wrong than the detention of siuli fee, needs none of tlu. retnedieH which it is the duty of the chancellor to give for such protectior Lii'tiiij^ton v, Jofies, 3 Wall, Ji. (iitiKU, .1.; I'a,, IHOI. 3U. A court of law is his proper rc« sort ; the only remedy to which lie is entitled being a judgment for a givon sum of money, with interest ; andtlit'ic' he may recover a penalty to the extent of treble damages, if the judge sees fil to inflict it. IVmilties and punitive dam- ages can be recovered only in courts ut' law. If)i(l 37. Although the statute gives origi nal cognizance of ])atent controversies, equally to courts of ecjuity as to courts lUITY, H. a. 367 otW(ti((*L mtx^ rumm vot what to uuNt«iii, kto. ol' litMt nil (lUtlikctloii uiM tu tliu ruiiio- ilitf* grikiiit* outtrt will ^^\vv tlii< rtMiiuily piKHiliitr to itN own t'linotitMiH. 'I'lm r»'ii»'«IUm of a Conirt of Chunr«' li^jiiiit'tioti ikiiil lUM'oiiiit, iiikI ii cuurt «»f" i-qnily caiiiii>t taki* jiiriHilii- liirti to fiiloroo A |M'nall,y, or iiMTrly pii- iillivtf ilitinuKUN. A oN. Iftiil, •i. On'ijinal Dill; jutrttit to} what to «if forth ; m\lnj'iirti>iiiim<$« of f amentlinent ami liitminaat of. I. A Itill lll*'il for (111 iiijiiiK-tioii nIioiiIiI sit I'oilli lliHt, iiflnr lilt! issiiiiijr of the iiuti'iit, tilt* (;oiii|il!kin:iiit liiul put Ii'ih in- volition into nHi>, or huil noM tin* Niitiit* for Ik valuiildu conMiilcriition, niitl im, ut :it till! titnu of tlio tiling of tlio hill, in lilt' I'XclllMivO |»OSMl!H.sion (»f Hlll'll |llltt'Ilt. hmrn V. Cooper, 4 Wash., I'UO, -JOl.— Wahiiinoton, J.; Pa., iHi'l. 'i. A hill for an iiijiiii(;tioii Hlit)iilr nn ni'etmnt. OgU V. A,3/», 4 Waith., flH4, — Wahulmutox, J.; I 'a., IHitJ. 4. A hill tlleil for the Mpeeille perfttrni' aneo of u (Mtntraet ri'Npe«>ting u patent* right inuti eiMititin the proper averinentit to give jiirii*<|u'tion to the lUMirt, hy rea^ Noik ot the (iA'(m'70<' of tin* parlieN. The fuel of the Huhjeet matter of the eon- traet heing a patent tloes not give tin* ('ireuit (.JourtM jurisilietion. Iturr v. (ir<>jnri/, '2 I'aine, 420, 4J».— TlloMI*- Ho.N, .1.; N. Y., 1828. 6. An assignee of a p.art intereiit whii'h is exeliisivt! in a patent, may, ut law or in eipiity, maintain a ikiiit for in< fringement, wilhoi:t joining the paten- tee. Su held, in faet, the hill heing llletl hy thf assignee alone. Itruaki* v. Hii'kioll, .1 MiLeaii, 'J50.— Ml I.i:.\N, J.; Ohio, lH4:i. U. An assignor who retains an inter- est in a patent, nuiy he joiiu'd as a party <;omplainant with an assigiuM! ttf the ex- elusive interest in u eertain territory in which Hiieh assignor has no interest, in a hill for an injunctitm to restrain tho violation of the patent in that territory. Wooilirorth v. Wilson, 4 How., 71ti. — Xklson, J.; Sup. Ct., 18tr». 1. It is not neeessary that the bill shoulil allege or speeiiieally tlescribe all th(! evideiiet! whitih is to bu put in in tho ease; but the bill must contain allega- tions broad enough to cover any evi- dence, before it beeomes .athnissiblc. Nisfnith V. Culvert, 1 Wood, it Min., 44. — WooDUUUY, .1. ; IMass., 184.'). 8. A person interestetl in a patent, but not within tho particular district where the suit is brought, may bo made a party ct^mplainant in a bill to restrain an infringement within such tlistrict, as ho ia interested in protecting himself .against an infringement out of that dia- m c ?!|V./'l ^^ i^ . Hf*' 'i^C.^' "»<>' hi. W- i» 'IIP I " 208 EQUITY, B. 2. OUIUINAIi bill; PAIITIES TO; WHAT TO CONTAIN, KTO. trii't. Jluck V Cohf>^ Ljiw Uip., O. S,, 347.— C% NKi.iNii, J.; N. Y., 1840. 0. Wlu'tlirr in :i bill pni; iig for an injim 'tioii, a niisJoiiuliT of partioM as jdaintilfs wouiil dofoat tlio ])rayorfor an injunction to use a niaoliinc in wliich any of fhom arc interest I'd. Wotxl- worth V. I tall, 1 Wooil. it Min., 258. — WooniijUY, J.; Masa., 1840. 10. An nssignco of an invention by vir- tue of I'.n assigiinicnt made before pat- ent issued, may file a bill in his own name, under § 10 of the act of 18ai», ame'.iding § 16 of the act of 18;J0, against a i)atentoe to Avhoni a patent issued, upon the interfering applications, of his assignor and such patentee, for t'lie i)urpos'3 of annulling the patent is- sued, and having one granted .to him as assigtice. Gay v. Cvr/idl, 1 IJlati'hf., 607, 50!).— Ni-Lsox, J.; N. Y., 1849. 11. And such assignment need not bo recorded before suit brought ; it will be sufficient if it is recorded before pat- ent issued. Jlud., 500. 12. An objection to the joinder of an assignor with an assignee, as com- plainants in a bill, cannot bo taken on appeal, it being then too late. It should have been taken by demurrer, before the hearing on the merits. TAvingston V. Woodworth, 15 How., 557. — Danikl, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 13. G. tiled his bill against B. for an 'ufringement of a patent, and an injunc- tion was granted thereon. G. after- ward moved to amend by adding other parties plaintiif, averring that under an asrrceraent made between himself and such parties, and still iu force, they be- came the owners of an exclusive inter- est in the patent which B. h.ad uifringed, and that B. was aware of their interest in the patent ; Held., that such amend- ments could not be allowed, as they woidd amoiuit to the institutiiin df ;i tU'W suit, both as to pliiintiiVs and tin; right of action, and that that exceeded the power of amendnu'ut. (tinnlyatr V. Jioume, 3 Blatchf., 208. — Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1855. 14. A motion to dismiss the bill of the complainants, tiled for an injuiution on the ground that the defendants \ym\ parted with all their interest in the suit, will be denied if such assignnu'iit lias been made after the time when a ('(im- putiition of j)rofita ended. .Itean \, Mason., 20 How., 204.— Mi'Lkan, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. 15. A bill is not multifarious In'caiiso it embraces more tiiau one p.ittni, which it is alleged the defendant in- fringes ; at least, such will not be die case if the defendant's macliiiies in- fringe all the patents, or coritMins ilm improvements embraced in the scviial patents alleged to be infringed. Nomse \. Allen, MS. — Nklson, J. ; N.Y., 18r)8. 16. A bill was liled to restrain tlioiii- IVingement of four separate })atents, iiiul was demurred to on the groui.d that the matters set up were distinct and separate and comi)e]led the defendiuit to unite separate and distinct niatttrs of defence ; Held, that although tlio objection to tlie bill on the ground of multifariousness, in a general sense, might be well founded, yet as all the patents were charged to be infringed by the defendants, they were to that extent connected together, and that the cojivenience of jiarties, as well as the saving of expense in the litigation, jus- tified the embracing of all the patents in one suit. Ibid. 17. Query, Whether several patents could be embraced iu one o after- ward sold it again to A, Held, in a bill filed against D for an infringement and an account, that B should be made a party complainant with A, as having au equitable title and interest under the will. Ibid. 21, A party who relies upon tlie ver- dict of a jury and the judgment of a court of law for the establishment of his title, as a foundation of his claim, to be ijuieted in the possession and enjoyment of it, and for protecting him against in- fringement by others, must aver in his bill that such proceedings have taken place. Parker v. Brant, MS, — ^Gkieb, J.; Pa., 1850. 3. Supplemental and Cross Hill; Hill of Discovery. 1. Where an injunction has been •granted on an original patent, and dur- ing its existence the patent is surren- derecl and a new one issued, a supple- mtnital l)ill, founded on tin* renewed patent, is necessary,in onler to contimiu such injimdion, Woodworth v. Stone, .3 Story, 750,— Stouv, J,; I\Iass., 1845. 2. Where on an original l)ill a provis- ional injunction had been grantecl re- straining the defendant from furlher making and selling a cert.'iin article, and sni/se(|uent to the filing of the original ]>ill !ind the issuance of such injunction, .■mother party had become connectiMl with the subject matter of the Kiiit, and it Avas alleged that lie was doing those things which tlio court had previously restrained, and a discovery was sought, Ifeld, such party was properly brought before the coiu't by a 8upj)lementul bill. rarkfmrst v. Kinsman, 2 IJl.'itdif., 73- 75,— IJiiiTS, J, ; N. Y,, 1848. 3. A supplemental bill may br. f,l(>d jit any stage of the cause, e'-'U after decree rendered. Ibid., 7Q. 4. It is essential to a valid bill of dis- covery, in respect to a patent, that it set ft)rth a title in the party which is sufli- eient to support or defend a suit, and that it pray a discovery })ertinent to th.at title and nothing beyond. Young v. Colt, 2 Blatchf,, 377. Betts, J. ; N. Y., 1852. 5. A defendant in a suit in equity founded on an infringement of a patent, cannot by a cross bill, whicli sets up no title in himself, demand a discovery from the plaintiff in the original suit, who has aJpr^7?^ayac^e title, as to the source or validity of that title. Ibid., 311. 6. Where such a bill cannot be sus- tained as a bill of discovery, it cannot be retained for the purpose of relief, unless the bill makes out a case for re- SIC] 'Mir '**ro- duced to overcome it, ami justify an injunction,, Woodworth v. I/«., 1!»» '^P^M >yc ilfti .-i-!,jif( '^^^^, ^^ww 219 KQT'ITY, C. ? v ; ,% lished upon just and rea' o ribk^ grcuiii-. AmoskeaffMff'itf. Co. v. iif\ar.,'>.'hu].. S. C, 004, 005. ' )uEu, J . ■ y . Y., W-j. '■fe EQUITY, C. Jt'UIHr>lCTION A8 TO TKADK-MAIIKS 7. A ii:irty i.-* t'lititli'd to thu protec- tion of tlu! law ill tlic exclusive' use of IiiHtnulc mark, ami tlic iiili'n.'sts of tlic imlilic as will as his own riMjiiiro that it bhouM Ik' o;ivcii. Ibid, OO.J. 8. A court of ocjuily in refusing to restrain the violation of another's traile- iii;irk woiiM violate the principles upon which a lart^e portion of its jurisdiction is founded. Ibid., 000, 9. A court of e(piity will restrain u \vroii<4docr in such cases, on the ground of protecting a party in the exercise of a legal right, the suppression of fraud, and preventing a mischief which might otherwise prove irreparable. Ihid., 000. 10. A complainant c.innot claim the protection of a court of eipiily to re- strain a fraudulent use of liis trade- mark on the ground cither of liaving an exclusive right as an inventor in the thing manufactured Ity him, or an ex- clusive right as author in liis lahel. Cof- feen v. Brmiton, 4 McLean, 517. — McLkav, J.; Ind., 1849. 11. An intentional fraud is not neces- sary to entitle a plaintift' to such pro- tection. Ibid., 519, 12. The fact that the use of words as trade-marks, indicating quality mere- ly, may to some extent inislcad purchas- eis, or induce them to believe that ar- ticles manufactured by one person are those manufactured by anotlier, will not ji ilfy the court in aifording protection to the use of such names, if such im- pression is not one which was intended to he derived from them, Stokes v. lamlgraff, 17 Barb., S. C, 012.— Strong, J, ; 'A. Y,, 18r)3. 13. The ground xipon wliich a court of equity exercises jurisdiction in trade- mark cases is the prevention of fraud, and of damages conse(pieut upon it, ihat might bo irreparable. Gillett v. 18 Iuttk\ 3 Duer, 020,— Boswoinii, J.; N. Y., IH54. 14. Courts of equity do not interfere hy injunction in cases of violation of trade-marks, except in aid of a legal right. If the fact of the plaintillV right in a trade-mark, or the defenda..(s' in- terference with it, be doubtful, the plaintill's will be left to establish their title at law. Merrimack Mxmif. Co. v. Garner, 4 E. 1), Smith's Kep., :t90,— I)Ai.v, J. ; N. Y., 185r., 15, It maybe that a i)arty would not bo ])erinitted to manufacture and vend an inferior article, and put it forth to the public as of the same (piality and kind as that of another, but whether he could be restrained by injunction it doubtful. Ibid, S92, 10. When the power of a court of cfpiity has been invoked, it has been t<« restrain the defendant from making \\\^ goods and selling them as and for the goods manufactured by the plaintiff, on the ground that such a fraud was an inju- ry to the plaintiff, and tending to mislead and deceive the public, iS((fnucl v, lier- ffer, 24 Barb., S. C, 105. — Daviks, J ; N. Y., 1850. 17. The ])laintiff, a manufacturer of watches, claimed the right, as assignee, to stamp his watches with the name of onelberson Brindle. The defend.ints sold watches manufactured by said Brindle himself, and stamped with his nanif. Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction to restrain the defend- ants from selling the original article, and thus protect the plaintiff in selling the simulated. Ibid, 105, 18. A tradesman, to bring his privi- lege of using a particidar mark under the protection of equity, is not bound to prove that it has been copied in every particular by another. It is enough for VXIVVVY, (\ Jl'lllMDU'riON AN TO TUAHK-MAHKIt. *- "^-^fc.; •^ii^J^ *<4i|' '^ ■i»>-7 R -1^ Iiiiii (o ''lii>\v lli.'if llii' n'i»r» to liis iiHto 1t«> «<:iltMital<>il It) iiii'>l« |>iil)lii' j'jt'iii'rallx, \\\\o iiic |iiir('li!iN('i-H ol'tlit' iir (it'll', :iiiil It) in.'ikt' it pic^s >\it1i tlittii I'tir iht' art it'll' sdM l>y liiiii. W'u/tun v. Cr.iir/,}/, ;] l>I«U'lit;, -tlT. — IIkith, ,1.; N. Y., isAd. ID. ir n iilninfilV «'i»moH into n roiirt of I'tjiiity (t< t'laiin ii'lii'l' aijainst (in* lVan>l I'l" t>tliors, hi' must be iVi'i' liimm'ir iVtuii till' im|uilatit»u. /'Iti'hft/c \. HV//.v, l:l Il.nx.rr., ;ist>.~ Pi i:u. .1.; N. Y., '20. \C sail's t>t' ail art it'll' iiiailt' l>y a I'laiiititr ait' ollVi'ti'tl, or mniLjIit 1<) Ih', li\ inisfi'pfi'soiitatinn aiitl T'lsi'lun'il, lif oaiiuol l>t> lisd'iH'il (t> wlit'ii lie .i m- I'laiiis that liv tlu' rraiuliilfnt rivalry of oiliiM's liis own iVaiiiliilt'iil pinlits avo dimiiiislit'tl. An t'\tliisi\ c |irivili'i;«' ftir iloc'i>i\ iiiij tlio pulilit' is ti'< :»>"li- oK' i-alU'tl till' " Halm o( a Tlunisaiul Flt>\vors," .'iiiti wliit'li tlu'v roj ivsoiitcd a" "tlio Vi'iy l>alm aiitl oxtrafl of ht'al- inji Uli>sst>ms," l>u( whitli in I'ai't was ttnly A litiniil soa]», anii piiMio. ami that the plaintiff oouUl nt>t bt.> pitXi'i'lt'ii in snoh a j^rivili'go. //)/i'. '2'2. Tho |irt>tootioi> of tra;i)ot|s of the ili'liinliiiit ns lhi>s(' i)f (he plainlilV must i'\is(. iliuuijli njiiiit's may Ik' nsi'ij, oipially with niliir th'xiees, jis iiislnunenlH of mich iViiiiil. 'Jtl. that (he mere ii^e i>l" tlu' ii:itni> .'iltxie, not intli«'atiiiLj any ti\\ niMsliiii, t>ri}:;in, tir mamifafliin' of the ;iiii,.|ii si)|t|, anil (hi'refiire by itself nut iiistni- nienlil in ri'piesi'iitinjr it> a piuclia'^t'r that the fioiwls bttiij^ht by him, nt' ijic '-iipp.'setl pirate, were those nf (he ,(i|||. plain.-ml, aid only tlesi^iialiiiir nr i'xm;,'- irenitinu; the malerials, kiiitl, tpialilv, ileslineil use, or elass of fiistoineis of the artit'lt's sold, eaniiot bf prutet'ii'tl, without piMof of iV.iuduIeiit inlfiit in sneh nse. //»/«/., lO'J. •Jl. \ foiirt of eipiity will nt)( inicr. t't'ie to jiroteet ii par(y in the use ef ir.itK'-marks whieh are employetl tctlf eeive (he publit', ami t., It'ccixo di,.,,, by frautliilent represonlatioiis eonlaiiu'il in the labels ami ileviees wliifli mi' elainit'il to t'i>nstiliitt' whtilly t>r in |i;irl sutli ir.itle-marks. An intent tn tlet'civo the piiblio 18 not favored. //o/>h v. Fi'tjm', 10 How. l*r., .^T1.- l)"s- wt>KTii, .T.; N. Y., 18(50. -.''. \Vhere the plaintid'inaiiulacliiriil a skin powtler ealletl " Meeii I'liii," whieh was roprosontoil as made in l.mi- don, and "patrtMiizetl by her majesty tho Cjneen," when in taet it was maile in New York, aiitl the tleleiitlaiit niamiliu'- turod a like artielo, rejirt'senliiij; it us "patronized by her maji'sty the Km- press," ILldy that tho ot.mrt wi.;:ld m '. Ki\. CliaiHMM'y will nut intiTli'ir liy iii- Juiii'lioii ill i|iirHli)iiiM tif li')iH ; Hiirli (|iii'>. ('as.) -Ckaniii, t'li. .1. h. ('., iH»4. '2. 'i'lie Hiili'-i iHiti<»n ofoiie ineeli:ini(;al |i(i\v(r in a niaeliiiie, as the wlii'el ami iivic, in the place of n Hcrow, to ae- loinplish the .s;uiie result, i,s a mere f'or- miil iiltcraliori ami no invention, /{/tf/ir/i. ami-Stock Far. v. W"nia; I I5l:ilelir., '.'Ts.— Nklhov, J. ; Ct., lH4ecifi(! iiifjredients or things, aiuf oxjircssly exclude all others, or expres-,- ly cxcludo some or one other. If lie does 80, tho use of the thing disclaimed is no infringement. Ihid.., 203, ? "i^i •1 ' ^i ■««*J'.'I5S '^i,^, ^^5^ ^^W» VvMuM^ 276 KgUIVAIACNTS. UUCTHINR AH TO, ANU AI'I'UCATION Of. fC u> ' ^'IT'*'; ^"^ ki... /Iti "-^ ■ r(^ 10. Tlic (locti'ino of till) UNO of Jiio- «'li:uiU-al i><|uiviili>iitH is not contiiioil in tlinsc I'lciiu'iitK wli'u-h iUf hlriouly huiIi ill tlu' Hiii'iu'c of iiH'j'liaiiics. Thort' mo (lilU'ri'iit Wfll-kiiowii «Uvi(H«*, niiy oiio o** wliich may bo iKlaptcil to cfffct a givt'ii ri'siilt, aci'ordiiii; to tlio jij(l;;ni«iil of (lie coiisfnictor. Tlic mcit' siiltsiitii- lioii of one of flu's*' for anotluT doi"* not Ix'loDg to the Bubjoct of invoiitioii, but of construction. Fosfir v. Mnoir, 1 Curt,, '21)1.— Cruris, .1.; Mass., lS.5l>. 1 I. A macliine, const iiictod lo accom- plish a particular object or purpose, may often be materially «'han<^ctl from its on<;inal construction, .'ind yet work very \v«'ll. There are mechanical e(|uivalents by the use of which the whole features may be chanfjed, and u ujreat departure made from the app.'irent principle and combination of the machin", and yet it may operate well, lihim-luird v. Jiara, $ r.latchf., 419, 420.— Nki.son, J.; Ct., \2. The pubstitutioti of a mccluuiical equivalent i.s not a subst.antiai cliange. There are many (b'vici's in construction that can bo made by a skilful mechanic, ditVering very mu(;h in appearance, btit which in the eye of the patent law are regarded as identicil. 2\ith((m v. Le Uoy, 2 iJlatchf., 480.— Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1852. i:i. Any machine which has been con- structed may bo very m.aterially chang- ed in its mechanical arrangement and Construction, and yet it nuiy accomj)lish the object and purpo.sc for wliich it was designed. Ibid., 487. 14. When a power is necessary for working a machine, the inventor or pro- jjrietor has a right to make his selection of any description of power known to the mechanic arts. It is of no impor- tance whether such power ia hand, Ml«>am, liorMo power, electricity, or any other power. The ttubHtitution aiul ustt of one power, as eh'clricily, in the plact.> of another, as hand power, does nut nuiko the machine ditferent, or previni its infringing on another. The one u iuit an eipiivalent of the other. <'ri- hitri', V. AYorfoti, MS. — Nki.kon, J.; N, Y., lHr,;t. 15. The(hictrinoof .nechanic.'il etpiiv- aleiits depends upon the truth thai tlic idt'iitlty i>/' jntr/xint; and not of form m' nanu', is the true criterion of judging dj' the similarity or ilissimilarity of two pieces of mechanism. YtdrKl i/ v. lii'oiiktiilil, MS. (Apj). Cas.) — .M(>k.«,i:i.i,, J.; ])'. ('., 1s.->:j. 10. Where two devices aro eap;ililo e.aeh of doing the same thing, and in substantially the same WMy, they must be ecpiivalents of each otlu-r, ami when Olio has been usetl, the other is not patentable. Jioiitjhton, Ex ptirk, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoKSKij,, J.; D.C., 1854. 17. Whether one tiling is a mci'liaii ic:d equivalent for anotlmr, is an iiifci- ence to be drawn from all the eirciini- staiices of the ease, by aHonding to the consider.ition whether If/e c/»ritrivancu.s used by the one party aro urn il for the naniepurpoHf, performs the siimn i/ii/iri, or is applicable to the snmc! object as the contrivaiico tised by the other party nui. 18. The phrase "or the equivalent therefor," in macliinery, extends to ini- jtrovements substanti.illy the same us those described, involving the same principle, and emljracing all alterations merely colorable, but does not inchule a claim to any other invention, equivalent, or equal to the one described. This would be to include all modifications or iniproveuienta in the machine, McCur- KQIIIVALEN1>. 277 DOOTRIMI AS TO, AND APFMOATtOR Of. Ill ii'k V. AfunHi/, (i IMcLcun, ftrt?.— Mr- Lkav, J. ; III., 1885. 1J>. Tlif Hiihsiilulion <>r one iin clinii- ir:il i><|iiival< lit :im ii rml in |>lac<> of an i>iiilli"«H fliiiin, to ai>(!oiii|tlisli ii like |iiir (isi! and w illi likf cftVrt, in not the Miilt- jcct of a patent. S/min v. (Jmiififr, MS, (App. Cas.)— .MoKHi:i,i,, J,; \).V., Ih: material variations or rraiidiileiit i*v;i- Nioiis. That is !i Kiiit^taiiti.'il identity wliicli eoinprelieiids the application of the prhii'lpfi' n[' [\w invention. If a party jidopm a dilVerent iiiodtf of earry- iiiji; the mnno prineiplu intd cflui't, and the prineiph' adniits of ii variety of foniiH, there is mi identity «tf principlp, 20. Hy an ahiine of this (h>elrine of thoii;,'h nut ,'in ideiility of mode. l* to l»e Hulistantiaiiy t!ie Kimo with every other wliicli etVi-cts the Hiiiiie purpose. SickU'a v. Glnu, Miiniif, 6V)., MS.— (iuiKit, J. ; N. J., IH-id. 21. If the pat«'nt«'e lie an ori;x>"!'l '"■ veiitor of a machine or tiling, he has till' riiiht to treat as infringers all who make a like invention operaliii<; on the wune principles, and p(M-forminjjj the ^aiiie functions hy anaIoL;ous means or (iiuivalcnt ciMnhinnlions, oven thoti;^h the infrinff, '20 How., 10").— (tiuki{, J. ; Slip. Ct., lH."i7. 22. lint if his invention lie but an iiuproveniont on a known machine, he {•aiiiiot treat another as an infringer who lias improved the original iiiaehiiie l»y using a dilVerent form or comhiiiation lierforniing the same function. The in- ventor of a iirst iinproveinent cannot in- voke the doctrine of mechanical ecpiiv- nlunts to suppress all other improve- ments which are not mere colorable invasions. Ibid., 405. 2.3. Tlie use, in a combin.ation, of one C((ftivalent for another, does not render it new in the sense of the patent laws, liiif 8ome new mode of operation must he introduced. Forhnsh v. Goo/r, 10 Mo. Law Itep., G04. — Cuirris, J. ; Mass., 1857. 2i Substantial identity excludes im- V. /'Irn/y MS. — Wir.KiNs, J. ; .Mich. 1H57. '!!>. The same pnnclple may be used without an exact identity, bv inechan- y e(piivalents or eontriv iiices, an« I if so there wt)uhl be a Kiibstantial identity, or such an arrangement of mechnnisni which product's the sanu; service, or produces the sanus effect in the saiiH' way, or Hubstaiitially in the H.anio way. ffiid. 20. If a change introduced constitute a mechanical e(piivalent in reference to the means used by another, and besideM being such iiii i-'piivalent accomplishes some other advantages beyond the ef- fect or purpose a(!complish(>(l by such puteiilee, Htlch fiuilier advantagu may make it a patentable subject, or an im- provement upon the former invention. /fi/ifxird, /''je p(ir(i\ jSIH. (App. Cas.)— MousKix, .1. ; 1). C, 1857. 27. The substantial equiv.alent o ' a thing is the same as the thing itself, so that if two machines do the same work in substantially the same way, and .ac- complish substantially the same result, they are the same ; and so if parts of the two m.achines do the s.ame work, in sub- Htantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, those parts are the same, .although they may differ ill form or sh.aiie ; but in both cases, if the two things perform different work, or in a w.ay substanti.ally different, or do' not accomplish substantially the same ^1 ^'^i '»*'V i i 1 ii i 27fl KBTOl'l'EL. APTMCATION Or MtCTIIIXI or, IN I'ATINT ('A»tm, *^h,J^,. 1'%,. rc«iiili, llicii fhi'v an' »iil»Htantiiilly tllrtVr- iU>, J.; Ml'., 1850. 2^. Sli),'lit (lin»'r«'no<'N in c1fi?r»»o <'nii- iu»t lie ri'gardi'tl an <»l' wt'i^'lit in .lutiT- iiiinin}; qiii'Mtions of HiiIiMlaiitial .<i' Hul)MtanliaI ilinrn-upt'. ()n(! may 1m! loii^'i' - Pfrec conHtituti's a sultNtantial diftiTonct' Ih a qiU'Htion tor the Jury. Mcro dillrr- eiicc in (h'urcn is, however, entitled to bill litlle weij;llf. ff't'tf. 20. Ttio turm oiiuivaient has two nieaiiinj^s. The one rt'hitoH to the re- Biiltx that ai' iirodiieed, and the other to tiie incrhaiiisni hy wl.ich tlioso re- sults are jirodiiceil. Jo/uisot, \, Jionf, 3IS. — Si'KAdi K, J. ; Mass., 1858. Uo. Two thiiij^s in.iy he e(|iiiv!ilent as ])rodiieiiig tlie saiiu) re-iilts, when they are not the same meehanical means. MechanicftI equivalents are Ppoken of as difl'ereiit from equivalents thai mere- ly |iii,dil('e the s.liiu' resiiIlH. lf>i(f. 31. A mecli-mieal e(|uivalent, as gen- erally understc 'd is where the one may be adopted instead of the other, l»y u ])erson skilled in the art, from his knowl- odj^e of tin art, as jirodiiciii!^ a pressure in a maehino by u spring, or by u weight. .'12. But there may bo eqiiiv.alents to produce the same rcsult.s, each of which is an independent matter of invention, and in that sense they are not mecluui- ical equivalents, as the invention and use of a pump to raise water instead of drawing the water by a rope and I^'ail. Ibid. 33. However the appearance of a thing may be altered, if the as{)ect, the form, the appearances presented, are changed only by the use of mechanical oquivnleiits, tlu'H it JH subHtuiitially th|) mune thing. IftitL .14. And, if iin invention is a Huhitti. tiition for the original invention, then it is not Hiibstantially the name. //>; not e(|iii\alent is matter of Kkill and Honnd judgment (for the deterniiiiatii.ii of the ortlce), whitdi can in no w.iy he limited, or restrained by the :ldlni>^silln't i»r (b'ui.'ilK of parties. Jlntrliinson v. Mt( v. Ilfdl, 1 Mas. 473. — Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1818. 3. l( several patents are taken out by several patentees for a several inven- tion, and the same patentees afterward take out a joint j)atent for the same as a joint invention, the parties are not al> solutely estopped by tlu former patents from asserting the invention to be joint, but the former patents are very strong evidence again.st the joint invention. Ibid., 474. 4. An inventor can h-ave but a single valid patent for his invention. The lirst he obtains, while it remains um-epealed, is an estoppel to any future patent for *-iiv, POl'PEL. 270 APFMCATmir or pocrtdiii or, in fathmt oai tlu» oiiino hivi-'iitloii. OiTlomn V. Amo»- fixfi/ X'n'l FiK'., 2 Ma , .')l.-— Story, T.; 5. I ?i nil* action of (H»vi>nniif brnkt-n, till' tloi'liirtttloii ftviMTiMl tlint th< piirtit-M wi-w Joint Invtin'TH of a ui'MihiiH', ninl tliiit [\\*'y novoimiitt'tl to co-oporiito to niHMin" tlu- l»«'n»'fit thorc'if, uiul tliat oiw (ilii'uld liftvo He/Mu-t'(l to liim rortiiui ^latfs, mill Hiy oIIut cortain oIIut wtatos, mill iliut luitlitM" slumlfl HHi' or x-ll die iiiiiiliiiH' ill till' toif'iforit'H of tlii> wilii'r; (111(1 till I! iilU'j;u«l povcnniit brokf*, Jfi'fd, llijit llu' ilcfi'inlaiif ill such action c-ouM lint |)l<'!ii| lliiil. rnitlicr parfy was flu< iii- vintiif, or that wopurate patLiits li:nl lii'i'ii i-'>iipi| to each. Steni'HM v. /inr j;ff. 1 I'ick., 44.'J, 447.— WiMiK, J.; .Muss., IH'JM. 0. Anil after havinir ohtaiiu-il a joint jititi'iit. ni'itluT party coulil sot up tin- |):i(ir separate patents; and that neither was estopped hy llie separate patents fruin iissertiiij^ that the invention was joint. Ibid., 447. 7. An assit^nnient of nn invention ht'foie a [)atent is obtained is a good tr.uisfor of the ripht of the patentee wlu'M lie obtains ;i patent, an-l he would bo estopped from settinp; up any adve^^e title. IkrhcH v. Adams, 4 Mas., 15. — iSruKY, J.; Mass., 1825. 8. Whether a disclaimer of all title uiiiler a former patent, as to the parts clftiiiied in a subsequent patent, would not openite as an cHtoppel to any renie- ily whiili might be prosecuted for a vio- lution of such former patent ; queri/. IVeaawcll v. JJladen, 4 Wash., 700. — Wasuixiton, J.; Pa., 1827. 9. A (iisolaimcr, at the close of a spec- ification, estops the patentee from set- tiiii^ up any privilege lo the part dis- claimed. Whitney v. Kntmett, llald. Hep., :n.']. — Bai.dwix, J.; ]*a., isai. 10. Tf a ilefeiidant, in an action ft* «pe«'tinjjf a patent, him iidverti<*ed tho thing p.'iteiited, nml vliieh had been noM by him a^ a UMefiil invention, and one that lias HiiperMeded otherH, he will not, in any aetioii against jiim, be allowed to deny its mility. Stnnhy v. Whipide, '1 MeL.ian, ,Jl». — McLkan, .1.; Oldo, lH:if>. 1 1 . Wlu . a pnrty claims to establish his rights rm 'ly by un estoppel, tli<' in- >triiment )»y which the • loppel is hujh ported should l)e precise, elear, n»>d tui- eipiivocal, and not dependi\ig on ■! 'ubt- fill inferenee. Ilii'h \. JIot<'/,/c,sn, 10 Conn., 418. — Wii.i.iAMs, Ci,. J.; Ot., ' 1844. 12. 'Hie taking of a license, to une ft patent-right for a «iine, cannot bir con- sidered as an aeknowledgmi iit of a right in the licenser iH'yond the termi- nation of such ]i''ense. Ihid., 418. 13. Where it was stipulated between A !ind 15, that I' should be cut. (led to us(! A's patent tioee days in a week un- til a given date, and that A wo ild not prosecute any action .against 11 for any former violation, provided li should not use such patent after the speeilied date, or by .any other machine iufringe .Va right, Ifdd, tliat such proviso, introduc- ed by the plaintirt", and not placing any personal obligation on the defendant, did not operate as an estoppel ag.'un:^t 15 to prevent him showing the truth in reg.ard to tho validity of the right of A. Ibid., 4li), 420. 14. The bringing of an action for ar- rears duo on a license to use a patent is no waiver of a right to enforce a forfeit- ure of such license for the non-payment of the price agreed for such use. Arm- at) my s.Ilanlenbeck, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 45.— IJiCTTS, J.; N. Y., 1844. 15. Ibit the confession of a judgment W4 ,-t. ^'^■^Wi "M^ >./, /I Hi, , •^^vr _rHirt^4^aBcatt^«i m. «-■ ■1,ti"%^^^ 'M. i iix. ■■" %:. -~^i\ w ln#'i ■itv mi u WW^Brf IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 111 1.0 '.I 11.25 us Itt 110 1 2.5 12-2 20 M. 1116 72 A> Hiotogr^hic Sciences Corporation ^'' ^v. '%" 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 972-4503 IPWP""P '^■^.S^:- ' .'HO ESTOrrKT.. IC^.W i f i*a Al'i'I ICVTION OK DOCTUIN'E Of, IV I'ATl'.NT CASKS. in .1 suit broiii^lit to recover such arrciirs is an adnission of sucli j)ayniciils hcint,' | in arrcar, and the tlcfcndant will not af- terward be alK)\ved to go hdiind hucIi judi;niciit, and jir'jvc that there was no dci'auit in payment. //><(/., 45. 1(5. If u licensee or j^rantee acknowl- edifc, nneil from denying it '; lin^oks Y.Sfoilii/, :t MiLean, 5'J(3. — Mersonal attention to manufacturing of machines under the patent ; afterward lie made a second agreement with the patentee, whereby he, K., agreed to discontiime such manufacture, aid the patentee was to carry it on, rendering to K. a certain proportion of the prolits; Held, that by virtue of such agreements K. was estop- ped, in an action brought ag.ainst him by tlie patentee for continuing such manufacture, and for an account, from setting up the defence that such paten- tee "was not the original and first inven- tor of the thing patented. Park'hurst V. Kinsman, 1 Blatdif., 400, 495.— Nklsox, J. ; N. Y., 1849. [Affirmed, post 21.] 19. Declarations on the part of anin- A'cntor, that he did not intend to take out patent, but to let the public have his invention, would estop such party, or any one holding imder him, from as- serting his right, as by action of in- fringemcnt, against a person acting on the faith of such declarations, which aro etpiivalcnt to a license, l^ltta v. //(///, ii IJIatchf, 237, 238.— Nklso.n, J. ; N. Y., 1H51. 20. I), having, during the inndcncy of certain action- against him, iuoiight by Ct. for the infringement of (J.'s pat- ents, mad') a settlement with ('., and having secured tho* exclusive right to use said (l.'s patents, and also consentiiii'' that a judgment should be taken against him in one of such suits; Jldtl, that I). had thereby admitted the vulldity of ( it. 's patents, and that he was estopped from denying their validity in any siil)- se(pient suit that might be brought against him by G. Goodyciir v. Dny^ MS. — DioKKKsox, Guiurw, JJ. ; N. J., 1852. 21. An agreement made with a i)at- enUe to manufacture his i)atented ma- chines upon certain conditions, and mak- ing and selling such machines under the patentee's title, astopa such party, in an action for an account brought by the pat- entee, from alleging the invalidity of the patent. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, IS How., 293. — Curtis, J.; Sup. Ct., 1855. 22. II. purchased of B. the right to construct and use an alleged patented machine, and covenanted " to receive the said right as good and available to all intents and purposes, and that the same and the transfer shall not be liable to any objections for any supposed de- fect in, or objection to, the said letters patent, if such supposed defect or ob- jection should at anytime arise." Held, that the vendee in an action for the price, was estopped from alleging the invalidity of the patent. Ileilner v. Battiuy 27 Penn., 517, 520, 524.— WooDWAKD, J.; Pa., 1856. ;*^»% EVIDENCE, A. 281 IlIMUIKV OP PUOOr, ox WHOM UKS. •2;\. And siu'h estoppel applies as well to the olyeetioii that the reissued patent \v;i8 not for (lie same hivenlioii as tlie (iriLtiiiiil, as to tliat ajfuiiist llu' originality uf tlie invention. J/thf., 5*24. 24. An assignpient of an interest in a]iiiteiit prechujcs the assignor from as- serting that what he sold was useless. T/i'inMS V. Qitiiitdrd, 5 Duer, 82. — DiKU,.!.; N. Y., 1855. 25. Where the defendant purchased an interest in a patent, and gave his note for the agreed price, and at\erward assigned his interest in tlic invention ■iiul patent, and sucli assignment recited llie assigmiient to himself of the pat- ent-right, and purported to transfev it as it was transferred to him, Jfeld, in !iii action on sucili note, against the de- fendant, that ho could not set up that tiic invention was of no value, hut that he was estopped by his own assignment from qu-^stioning the patent and inven- tion. Jfrid., 82. 20. There is nothing to estop the gov- eniinent of the United States from showing a patent, which it had grar.ted, to have been a nullity ab initio, owing to the non-existence of the condition ]ircccdent of novelty of the invention. A7«y v. United /States, 10 Mo. Law. Kep., 031. (Ct. Claims, 1857.) 27. Where admissions are made by a party to induce others to act upon them, such admissions do not operate merely as presumptive evidence of the actual truth of the facts, which must give way to jtositive proof of the contrary, but preclude or estop the party, on grounds of policy. Carroll v. Gambrill, MS. (App.Cas.)— MoRSELL, J.; I). C, 1853. 28. If the defendants have used the plaintiff's invention, or something sub- stantially like it, they are estopped from denying its utility, for use implies utili- ty, and it is fair to presume that they would not use it if they thought il of no utility, ('olmi'tii v. /<,» I'**^.. ^ "<»liK UL'UDKN' OK I'KOOr, OK WIlOU I.IK.S. C Dlll'ohlTK XH 1. /V /j«'»(C f.Mj', und/ir Arts of Con- [tresn 2Hr> 2. Vmli-r Rukof Court or Cinumia- sioii 'JH7 3. Und,-r links of the Patent Office. 'J«8 II. DkCI.AUAIKiS.S AND AC'TH OF rAUTlKH, AND 'rilllll) I'KUHONS 'J!)(> I'J. I'AItdl,, AND HK0O!»nAUY KVIKEXCK. . . . ^'.CJ !•'. I'lUILlc; UKfOKDS AND I'Ai'Kim; Vku- DICT 2'M ii, WlTNKSHKS 1. Ctniijii Iniry ami Credit of <>. Of WltiH'Hs.nKi'iicnill.v . 295 o. of Asji).'niir of Ilivi'iitloli ill llltrrlV- niuvs -08 2. Kidjiiiuatiiin and liiipiarlinu'tit of 'JOH 3. Parties, Kjtamination of IIOO n. Rri.KH S TO PAimCUI-AH KaOTS AND ISSL'KS 1. Ahaudonment. . . 300 2. Fniudiilfnt IntciU :!0'.> 3. Iiifrin'jenicnt 302 4. Invention, and Orijiualiiy and Priority of 304 0. Invention, Novelty, and Utility of 307 A. Burden op Prook, on v.iiom LIES. 1. Ill a proceeding under ^10 of the act of 1793, the burdon of proof lies upon the ])laiiitiff to sliow that the pat- ent Avas ohtaii'c'd siirrej)titiously, or up- on false suggestions. Stearns v. Jiar- rett, 1 Mas., 175. — Sto^y, J.; Mass., 1816. 2. In a patent ease, the 0)ii(s jy^ohandl Is on the defendant toshowtliat tliepro- )HM' notice has been given under the stat- ute to enable him to examine witnesses to show that the invention of the plain- tiff had been known or used before his invention ; and if tlie notice is not giv- en, such evidence cannot be received. Phil. <£• IVcu. R. 11. v. Stimjison, 14 l*et., 459.— Story, J.; Sup. Ct., 1840. ;i. Though doubt and unccrfaintj nrt> fatal to a motion to grant an injnnctidti they are good cause' forconliniiing it ;,|| a nuitiou to dissolve ; the burden of proof being on tlie plaintilf in one oaso and on tlii^ defendant in tlie tiiliir. C'oojter V. J/ defeiid:nitsli;ivo inlVinged the jdaintitFs jt.atent, the Imr- den of proof lies on the plain! ill's, lild,^ 453. 7. If a defence of ])rior invention is made to an action of infringement, the burden of proof as to such point lies willi the defendant. lie nmst satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. that there was a prior invention, be- cause the nlaintiif has a right to rest up- on his patent, until its validity is over thrown. Wcs/thurnv. Gould., 3 Story, 142.— Story, J.; Mass., 1844. 8. The burden of proof is upon the jilaintift' to show that there has been an infringenuMit of his right. Ibid.,, 140. 9. The burden of proof that a com- bination is not ncAV, is on the party de- nying that it is new. llovey v. Henry., 3 AVest Law Jour., 154. — Woodiiuky, J.; Mass., 1845. 10. If a party set up a sale for more than two years before the application for a patent, the burden of proof lies on the party making such defence, and LVllJENCE, H. 288 rUKSUMI'TlOXM. he must i'st:il)Iisli tlio fact of sut-li salt' HO as to justify a jury in takiiij,' away till' piulHTty (»f tlio jilaiiitilf. ////V/., 11. WliiTo a I'laintilV has inado out ;\ vriimt fu( ie ('a«i> of iiifriii^ciiu'iif, and till' (Iffi'mlant uiidt'i-liikes to make out a siH'ci.iI ilclt'Mrc, as tliat tlio invt'htion lia.l lici'ii usL'd at ililU'rciit places hcfoic iii.iiiititf's iiivoiitioii, the defendant must niidtr these particulars ]irol»al)le, and iiiii>t tinn the scales in his favor. Al- ii n V. lihtiit, 2 Wood. «fe Min., It.'). — JSrouY, •^ ; Mass., iKK}. 12. if A make a machine for U, at ji's rcipie^t, for his benefit and al his expense, the presumption is, that it was iiiiule .'icciirdinij; to ll's '. li. A'., ai .lour. Kr. Inst., :!d Ser., 320.— Xi:i.hox, J.; N. Y., 185.-). 19. If the defence is set tijt, that the patentee is not the tirst and original in- ventor of the thing patented to him, the burden of proof is on the defend- ant to sliow a prior invention, and, if hi' does not, the verdict must be for the plaintiff. Cahoon v. lling^ MS.— Clif- Koui), .!.; Me., 1859. 20. On the question of infringement, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Ibid. Also Johnson v. Jioot^ MS. — SrKAGUE, J; Mass., 1858; and Latta V. Hhawh^ MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1859. 21. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to nuvke out affirmatively, by proof, tliat his invention has been infringed, before he can recover. Jndson v. Cope,, MS. — JjEAvnT, J. ; Ohio, 1800. II. PUKSUMPTIONS. See also Patent, P. 2 : Reissue op Patent, C. 1. It is 11 presumption of law, that i 4 M ^i»:> V-Ci • ■'■jc;.. 'ri%|fi Li hm 284 KVIDKNTE, n. C. I'llKStMI'TKINS. tiei'OHITION ; WHAT IH. iKr.^: f!-.^ ^ ^^M iS'^^ Tfci|||g|^„. [ulilie otlicers perform their proper ofli- eial duties, mitil the eontrary is proved. Where an act is to bo done, as a ]>atent to be granted or reissued uponevidenee anil ]»roofs to be laid before^ a judilie oflieer, upon which he is to deeide, the fact that he has done the .act, or grajited the patent, xn jm ma facie evidence that the proofs have been regularly made, and were satisfactory. Phil, <6 Tren. Ji. li. V. Sth}ijh'Errs, J.; N. Y., 1857. 7. It is to be assunu'd, that persons obtaining patents have aeipiainted tlitin- si'lves with the state of tht; art in wliidi, they are interested, as made known in books, or by machines built :uid put in use, and evidence is not iidmi^silih. to prove the contrary; nor is it matter of infjuiry whether m.'ichines described in printed works were ever practically put to use or not. Ihiil. H. The legal presumjition is, fVoni the r.ction of the I'ut'.uit Office, that ii reissued patent is for the satnc invi-i,. tioii as the original ])atent. IFiiswy y, McCor' ick, AIS. — McLiiAN, ,J.; [\\,^ 1H59. 9. All persons are bound to take knowledge of the doings of tlit; I'atciit Oflice, in relation to iiventions. Miirnj v. Trotter, 3IS. (Apj). Cas.}— Dinlui", J.; D. C, 1800. 10. The la- /requiring that an inventor should describe his invention with a accuracy and fulness, and it being the duty of the Commissioner of Patents to see this is done, the presumj»tion is that the patent ha^i been issued upon suftieitMit foundation ; and the court must bo well satisfied there is a material insufficiency or defect in the specification, before it will pronounce any patent a nullity and void. ,hul" . " I alHdavits. Jbid,^ 450. 1. De bene esse. 1. TIio act of Congri'ss— judiciary act of IT'S',)— relating tu taking of dc- positioiis de bene exse, must nccessar''y 1)1- so construed, as to confine its '^[inr- atioii to depositions taken within the iJistrift where tho witness lives, ))tort' tluin one hundred miles from tlie place of trial ; because process to compel at- tendance could run to any greater dis- t;mco within the district/ on that ac- count the deposition is to be de bene esse. A subpoena could not at tliat time run into another district. Evans v. Iletdck, 3 Wash., 417.— Wasiiingtox, J.; Pa., 1818. 2. The act of March 2, 1792, whicli declared that process for the attendance of witnesses in one district might run into another, provided the witnesses did not live more th.in one lumdred miles from the place of trial, does not affect the construction above given of tho judiciary act of 1789. Ibid., 417. 3. Depositions may however be taken ilitferently from what the law or rules of court prescribe under the agreement of the parties, or under any special rule of the court, in any particular case. Ibid., 418. 4. A deposition taken de bene east! which has been read in evidence with- out ol>je('tion, cannot be ftuhsot prove that he has useil due dili- gence to procure the attcmlance of th<,> witness, and ])articularly that h(^ has made inquiries .at the last place of abode of witness, in order to have him served with a subpu'iia. Pettibone v. Dcrrintjer, ' 4 Wash., 219.— Wasiiinuto.v, J. ; Pa., 1818. 0. It is no objection to reading tho deposition of a witness residing more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, that ho had been in the place where tho court s.it during its sitting, it appearing that the fact of the witness being so present was unknown to the party at whose instance tho deposition was taken. Whether the case would have been altered if the party had known of the presence of the witness ; query. Ibid., 219. 7. Depositions taken without a com- mission or rule of court, in another state, more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, but conforming in all respects to § 30 of the judiciary act of 1789, may be read in evidence. Ibid., 219. 8. A deposition taken under § 30 of tho act of 1789 cannot be read, unless the judge certifies that it was reduced to Avriting, either by himself or by the witness in his presc7ire. Ibid., 219. 9. A deposition which has once been en «ti;ii ''^Wk- •»sU-i *»f'mUuy^ 'iy'\ ,.%!5fejr.^^ 286 KVn)KNCK, C. I. ■*v/'S5 tH' . % 4 Ite-' i *««'■ >^^ I'^fi k &:» "«'. - if mil DKIKWITtONa; ItN BBMI MM. S'.itroduccfl ill a cauHc with tlic nc(|iii('s- ociK'c !uif)sil(' |t!ir(y, caiiimt lie al'trrwiinl ohjci-lcMl (o. /'Ji<>oih V. Jfcffirk, 7 Wlii-at., 470.— Story, J. ; Sup. Ct., IH22. 10. No |iiacti('(', liowovcr c'onv«'iii«'iit, can jrivu validity to (k>|it)Niti()nH which arc not taken according to law, iinlcNs tho partieH e.xprcsHly waive tlic olycc- tion, or by prcviouH coiiNcnt ajj^rcc to havo tlu'in taken and niado evidence. Evaiia V. I'hton., 7 Wheat., 420. — Stouy, J.; Sup. Ct., 1822. 11. Tho act of Congress (.ict of 17«0, ch. 20, ^ .^O, 1 Stat, at Largo, 100) as to the taking the testimony of wit- nesses residing more than ono hundred miles from tho place of trial by depo- sitions, is not peremptory, that under such circumstances their depositions shall be taken and nsed, l)ut only that they may bo taken and nsed. It is a mere option given to the party who wishes to use the testimony of the wit- nesses. Tho witnesses may be produced and if so produced, full costs of their personal travel and attendance will bo allowed in tho costs. Pronty v. lluyglcs^ 2 Story, 200.— Stouy, J.; IMass., 1842. 12. A deposition should not be taken during tho sitting of the court at which the cause is to be tried, excej)t by con- sent of parties or order of the court. Aller V. Jilunt, 2 Wood. & Min., 137. — WoonnuuY, J.; Mass., 1846. 13. Semhle, Th.it if the opposite party had counsel residing where the depo- sition was taken, and who had acted in a former tri.al, though such counsel was not entered on the record, if this fact was known to the party taking the do- . ]iosition, that notice of its taking sliould have been given to such counsel. Ibid., 137. 14. Whether, if the suit is against two, though only one has been Hcrvi-il with process, if will ''c suflliii nt if ilj,. <-aptiou of the suit in the deposition describen tho Huit as only ag;iiii<i;,/. 13H. 10. Where prior to the t.nking of (|(,. positions lie ficne <'««^, the opposite partv h:id had notice of tho names and places of residence «if the witnesses iiitendcl to be examined, and h.ad also been initi- lied that if they would vin, oit (dmuiiwiox. thi»iifx'' t"l"'" «-'•' j>(irti\, ar*> ro«'«)j;niy,»'il a« h'^Jil l»'Nliiinniy l»y tliu art of Con- rjri'!**, iukI »r«' iiviulaljli' for cltliiT k'hIi'. J,„hi>ii V. 0 liuinlrcil null's from thu placu of trial, ti.kcii iiii- iliT a rule of court, not in conforinity witli tlio rcfjiiircnu'iits of ^ ;i() of tlu' net of I 'HO, caiiiiot lie nail in I'vidt-nrc. JiMtiH V. Iktti'h; :) Wash., 4lH ; Fmua V. I'Mt'iu, :J Wasli., 444. — WAsmvciTON, .!.; I'll., IHIH. J. Where; witncssos hvt! out of a n, 'J IM.aft hf, »(!.— N'ki.hon, IIkits, .1.1. ; X. v., IHIH. 0. The same power which enables the court t<» name commissioners, sutticu.H lor the apjiointnient of masters and ex- aminers. 'I'he process acts of IT!'- aU'l |h4'_' gave tliis power of appointment, to be i'xercisi'd pursuant to the dlroo tions of till- Supreme Court. Iftid., 01. 7. Kule H:J in eipiity sam-tions the ap- pointment of standing masters and of nuisters y>/v> hur rice. Hut the Circu't Courts could, without this rule, ha\v, appointed masters jtro hdc vice, in their dis<'reti(Ui. Ihid., 02. 8. The language of rule 78 is satisfied by designating in a common order, or l»y nu're notilicatioii, the ofticer before \.'hom the examination is to be taken. This is in ell'ect appointing him ex.am- iner in the cause, although he should not be commissioned anew. Ihid., 02. n. It is a matter of dis(rretion with the court whether there shall be appoint- ed standing examiners, to take deposi- tions, or whether they shall bo named as the occasion arises for their services in any cause. Ibid., 0;14. 10. Where the plaintiff in a suit at eijuity, after the cause was at issue, pro- ceeded to take his proofs before one of the standing examiners of the court, without his having been specially ap- l)ointed as cxaiuiner in the cause, IMd, that the examiner was competent to take the proof. Ibid., 80, 0.1. 11. An oral exanunation of a witness before an examiner, without any agree- ment between the parties to waive written interrogations, is, under rule 07 in equity, Supreme Court rules, irregu- lar. Ibid.i 03. •■•■■'A ,,' TJS) K ''•i •• m ■ --^m .^ ^ Li, i-i ULLAn w 'i,.f' I ■■11 ' !;'■•»■■.„. 1 If ]^sm:!' 28f( KVII)K\IMirtU»«S IMilU Id l,M iir I'ATKXT orfioB. .{km'' k!'v. J^^. [fl^f^ 'Si:,.L 12. Ainl MiK'Ii iiii jii;r«'t'iiK'rit oii^lit to liu ill writiiiu. Ifn'il., u;(. i:i. VVIitM'tt a |iiii't)' liiiN Imil iKtiii'*' that ill! fxainiiiiitiiiii wnn (<> lie taken, ur liai than tlve inontliH hail<'la|)Hei| Niriee pniflieatioii, //'/'/, that the /- mitted ill the form retpiired, so th^it they could, under rule 4, be I'nii.ui!- ind\ty the Coinmissii>iier, /A/«/, nevcp. theless, that tho Commissioner liad ,i right to postpone the tieariiig, to uljuu the parties to cure the informality, ifln. deemed such action necessary to further the ends of Justice. 'I'heri' is uotliin:.' in the laws or rules of the I'alent i)\]\^^^. preventing the Commissioner iVoiii ho doing, //lid. 7. The rule referred to doi's not pr,- hibit tho Commissioner from Intkni'i itito the deposition iriforniiil'/ tiansniii- ted, or reading it and iiscertaiuiug its contents; but only prohibits him iVdiii (•(nisidcriiii/ it as evidence touching ila matter in issue. Ifjid. 8. lly an agreement of parties, tlic testimony of witnesses oilierwise incnin. peteiit may bo received .and considered. Warner v. Goodi/ear, MS. (App. Cas.| CiiANcn, Ch. J. ; D. C, 1846. (t. Depositions, to bo used in a m;it- ter of interference before the Coiiwnis- sioner of Patents, taken without notice to the opposing party, cannot be iistd against him, unless ho lias waived lii> right to notice, and .agreed to atlniit them to bo read in evidence. Perry v, Cornell, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cba.vcii, Cli. J.; 1). C, 1847. 10. And notice given by pucli i)arty to the opposing counsel to produce mi 'Ii de])Ositions to a Commissioner for ex- amination, .and an offer by such counsel to again produce t lie witnesses for cross- «.!'■, St'.A^. ^>%> ^'■W '^Cw KVIUENCR, C. a. >iH» ii's, till' iiu'oiii- clcred . C'as.) r«>ii('t>, on t\\v ^roiinil tliitt tho inoviii<; |);irty coiild not ohtaiti the jiltcmhiiu'u ot* hin witii»'-><«'s at the tinio :i|i|> picHiinieil that his (U'cision on it has Ik'1'11 .soiimlly exorcised. Ihiil. i:i. Depositions taken on the part of A in an interference between the appli- cations of A and n — the latter as as- nijjjnec of C — may be read in eviist and reasonable, according to the la eM|tibliH|);>d principicM and precctiontN in liko cases. fh'ui. 17. Where an interferencg \\\\% boon declared between certain luties, and testitiiony taken, and then another a|>- plication is iinnle by another party, and he • made a party to the interferonco, but the Hiibject matter u\' all the appli- cations is the same, the teHtiiiuiny taken on the first interference may be used on the second, without being retaken. (Iiirtf.r V. Cnrtrr, MS. (App. Cas.)— .MoitHKi.i., .T. ; D. ('., IH,').'). IH. It seems that testiiuoiiy taken on a former interference is admissible on a second one, and this though the sec- ond iiiterfereiice is decl.iri'd al\er an as- signment to aiii>lher parly. 1'J'iiinn v. /ifr/i(mfn, MS. (App. Cas,)— Mkkiihk, J.; D. C, 1H69. 10. A second interference is only a * rehearing of the s.-imo case, Iftid. 20. The rules and regulations of tho Patent Olllce :is to taking testimony in cases of interference, are binding upon the parties, and each is entitled to tho benefits of them, ami mil 11 abrogated, are as binding upon the Commissioner himself, as if enacted by the statnte it- self. 0' Ilitra V. Jftwes, MS. (App. Cas.) — MousKM,, J.; D. C, 1850, 21. Tho rules of the Patent Office as to tho taking of depositions, give to either of tho litigant parties the right to take depositions, withor't restraint, up to tho day of hearing li.\ed by tho Patent Office, or to a day near enough to give time for the transmission of tho evidence to tho Patent Office. Spear v. Abbott, MS. (App. Cas.) — UuNi.of, J.;. D. C, 1850, 22. The proceedings in tho Patent Office in contostetl cases, h.avo no re- semblance to trials at law ; a party can- not be compelled to examine all his wit- •im\ 111 '4 •W0' ' \ A uni ^-■•'^-3^^ m ■Alii =^*^ *«05 '.■•i....i^«t.»* IiInojhmi* Injif c'Vtiinitiiitinti. //Mtiiiii>- ny ipt lakcii, xltotilil Mt;tri)l itiilillVri'iit l>i'- twcfri tlM> |iiit-ti«4, in no mich rulution to I'llliiT of ilii'Mi us to Itiim him in t'livor o( oiH' nioft' ilmti tlir oiIht; nii»riM"<|M- ciiillyliv nIioiiIiI not Im* intcri'Nlt>i| in tin* (|iit>«tionN III ixmii'. t'lillins v, W/tife, MS. (A|.|.. Ca>«.)-MoUHKU„ J. ; I). C, lH not li>;{tilly lu't as an <>nt(U>r tu tiikup' oHJlionN ill nil intiTt'ii-riii-c, in tin* rt'siilt of uliiili Kiicli I'oiiitmny in iiitrrcNli'ii. J/>i./. 2A. If olijt'ciion IH not tii!i ootiipi'tcTjcy of a wiliicsH om IiIm cxtiiuni- atioii, ami linili |iai'tii'H cvainiiii' tiiiii, it will Ik- to<» l.ili' to laiHi' llii' olijcctioM an to liis coiiiix'ti'iicy, oil a|>i»c'al. Allitn v. Alfn; MS. (App. C:w.) -Mouski.i,, J,; '2i\. Wlirrc no notice of tiic takiiit; tif depositions lias been given to the oppo- Bito party, but Kiieli opposite j)arty or his eounsel ai'o present when theyaie taken, such depo-iilioiis will not be ex- clinleil because of w.'inl of notice, aii, .MS. (App. Cas.)— Dkm.oi., J.; I). C, ISO I. 27. The object of notice is to bring the adverser l>arty before the exainiiiiiig orticu-r. Whero the party attends be- fore KUch orticer, such notice is mere form, and technicality, whicli is covered by rule 1)0. IfnU. D. DlCCr.AltATIONS AN.) AOTS OK PaR- TIKS AND TlIinD PkUKONS. 1. The declarations of a party, at a given time, that he had invented a nia- chioe afterward ]»atented, aud which he tlicn de-tcribr,), niay hv received In cvi. deiiee; but tlu'y are liof proof tli;it In- was the inventor, but only that lii> nn\,[ h«» wasi. h'luinn \ . /A //I'X, :i Wttnli., 410. — U'ahiiinoton, .1.; I*u., Ih|h. '2. A witness cannot, lie culled in i,.,. lify as to what third parties may lm\t> staled an to an invention -hucIi hcin,; mere liearMay eviileiiee. The parties fri.tu whom the witnesH received the inrnrini. tion should liuvo bvun called. //^iV. III. .M. The letturn of n parly to the prop- er odieer of the government applvin;^ for a |ialent for his invention, are ail- missibh' as evidi'iiee as to ilu; fmi of IiIh being the inventor, on u Miit brought under liis patent. l*iit!hi,m V. Ihrrhtijii', 4 Wash., 21').— Wakp- IN iioN, .1.; I'a., JHlH. 4. The fact of making and e.\hihiliii;r an artii'le never before Been (»r lieanl of by the witnes«i!s, is at least j^lnm fiii'U: (v\idence of invention on llie pa-t of th(> maker, until othi>r evidciicu is given to [trove that the same artu-Iu was invented, known, or in use, at a prior time, and itiat the patentee liail only eiiibotlied the eonceptions ami ideas of some otlier persons. Vennwk V. lHitlni\-t iico U ilttU'lt' ', nt a '(' Imil i-i mill II n nek Asiiixr,. i(> flulm lliis I'llCl II fii>'k I'L'i'il tlie ire tli.iii iiivi'ii- ./(/., M'^. CSS that i:it('ntt'0, mill tliis tiiiiikiiiil 1 Story. KVrDKNCK, I). 3P1 MKLAKATtORt *KI> ACT* Of rARttM A«» tMIM» flMOMk Tlu' iliitiMili>'>, m«>r> !y ul1lrMilii(f llitit iit rt'tiition irt n I)iih|ii(>n<« l>* wlilfli lii'« iivC^*il* .diiH' forru'i' |M'ri<»il l.i' lnv«'nti'xli'ii ; ^r, utwl Wiinl iIm' [ riiici|ial iih il' iiiiuK* liiif IiIm ili'cltiriitiiMiM nml rntivi'malloiiN, \>y hliiiMott'. Aihn \. Urmit, :i WimhI, .ci'iiiK il>'kt III' liml iiiitilu HI) irivi'iiiioii, Ai Min., :iJMi, :tAa. — Woudiicicy, J.; iii'l il«>M('ril)ii);( ilK ilct.'iiN, nml «'X|ilaiii Miinn., 1^47. iii){ iiM i>|MitM, ar«! pri)|i«>i'l)' •<\hlt'ti(-if Ml. On thin ;;rniini|, tli«' iiilnii^iMiitng (if nri nMortion of IiIk ri;xlii. At. tlittt titiic, ! nml tlocliu-tttioiirt of tt iori>ii'>.iii ttt' tlio :wt iiti iiivontitr, to tho oxti'iit ot tlio fitciH i|t>ri'ii(lmit ax to tlio itiitii)M>r of nrtidc* :iM>l lictitiU tiiitilc known liy hill), tlii)iit;li inii\liirli wiit tlu' |>liiintiir<4 |i:it<>nt, were licM ii'lmiHti. ,l;ilc. P/iil. tts 7'rt'ii, /i. A*. V. Stinifh l»li<; Iml it hIuhiIiI Ik- inmlr to ii|nu'ar .,./(, I I IVt., 40'.».— Srof.v, J.; Sup. Ct., IHJO. tJiut hlH n;; nry ixtctKlcil to llu> partio* iilar biiMini'MH, ami whcthor tliu tlvclarn* H. Sn«'h f'onvcrsntions nml unti oliji>cts of the invention, arc M/Vft. to lit' «sioii!t mill l»';(itiiiiat<' t>vitl«'iit'«' tliat tlu' Invt'ii- of an a^^ij^nor of r. patent, al^iT In' 'las I'ma was llu-n known to .md clainicd by iiartcd with lii«4 inttTt'xt in il, arc in- liliii, and Hxi's its ori^/iri, at loant, an ndniissililc ritlicr to hIiow^ a want of eiirly an that period. //>/(/., 402. ',1. The inuro dt'claralioi of an invcnt- tltlj in him, or to affi'ct th« /ffin9J PAROL AND SECONDAKT KVIIIRNOB. that as Huch ho wan cntUIed to u patent for lliu Haid iiiveutiun. Ibid. E, Pakol and Skcondauy Eviuenck. 1. The letters of a party when ap- plying for a])ateut, are properly adniis- siblo in evidence in his own hehalf. Vdtibone v. Derringer^ 4 Wash., 219. — W'asiiinoton, J.; I'a., 1818. 2. In an action for infringement of n patent, the minutes of a company of wliii'li the plaintitls were meinliers, and !it whose snggestion and expense the subject of the patent was claimed to iiave been invented, may be read in evidence to i)rove that the plaintills were not the original inventors of the tiling jiatented ; but not It) show that tiie iilaintifFs had 8urr«'ptitiously obtain- ed the patent for another'.s invention, unless notice of such defence and inten- tion had heen given to the plaintiffs. Pcnnovk v. Diahxjiie, 4 "Wash., 645. — Washington, J. ; l*a., 1825. 3. But other entries in such book of minutes camiot be read by the plaintiffs to show that the company acknowl- edgt d the plaintiffs to be the inventors of the thing patented, the defendants in the suit not being members of such company. Ibid., 545. 4. The books of a party are not evi- dence as to invention, unless called for by the other party, or their contents inquired of by him. Stanley v. Whipple, 2 McLean, 39. — McLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1839. 5. Parol evidence bearing upon writ- ten contracts, or papers in respect to patent interests, ought not to be admit- ted without the production of such con- tracts or papers to enable the court and jury to seeVhelher the admission of the parol evidence will trench upon the rule that parol evidence is not adinia- sible to vary or contradict written eon- tracts or papers. Phil, tt Tnn. It. It. V. Sfinifisoii, 14 Pet., 401. — Stouy, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1840. 0. A letter of a third party, though sent under cover of one from the inven- tor to the Commissioner of Patents, is not evidence as to priority of invention. Cochrane v. Waterinan, ^IS. (App. Cas.)— CuANCii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1844. 7. A di'cd or documentary exhibit, showing that a witness had }).'irti'd with all his interest in an invention, may bo allowed to be i)ut in evidence in a suit after the general evidence hasi been pub- lished. ^tTesniith v. Calvert, 1 Wood. & Min., 42. — WoonnuuY, J. ; Mass., 1845. 8. Parol evidence is not admissible to j)rove the contents of papers, as a letter and drawings, alleged to have been sent by mail to the plaintifl' until proof is furnished to the court that they h.'kve been lost, or have gone into i)hiin- tifPs custody. If sent by mail they must be shown to have been received, particularly where the party to whom mailed denies on oath that they ever were received. Allen v. Uliait, 2 Wood. & Min., 130, 131. — WooDiiuuY, J.; U:\sH., 1840. 9. The mere putting of letters in the I»ost-ofHce is not sufhcient evidence of their bei:Ens ; Verdict. 1. An exemplification of a sjMci/ii'ution of a patent is made evidence by § 2 of the act of Congress of 1793. The ex- emplification of tho jMttent itself stands upon the common law, as being an ex- emplification of a record of a public document, and is alwaya to be received as evidence. Peck v. Farrinyton, 9 \V\mu1., 44.— Savage, Ch. J. ; N. Y., 1832. 2. A certified copy of a patent, sur- rendered and cancelled, is admissible in evidence, to show that an improvement Bubsequontly patented is not origin.nl, though it does not specify when it Avas cancelled, or how, or for what defect. Delano v. Scott, Gilpin, 496. — IIopkin- 80 X, J.; Pn., 1834. 3. A former anjl defective certified copy o a patent may be corrected by anoth' fidl and corrected certified copy, and tlic defective one cannot affect the one that is complete. Brooks v. Bick- nelly 3 McLean, 434. — McLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1844. 4. Certifie»l copies of assignments of patents on record are competent evi- dence of the originals, ami the proiluf- tion of the originals cannot be com- pelled. I hid., 430. 5. Papers or drawings on file in tlin Patent Otlico are public records, and certified copies of them nnist be ro- celved in evidence when oft'ered. If they are disconhmt, one may destroy the effect of the other. ]Jut they ncud not concur in every j)articular. Knur- son v. Jfot/i/, 2 Blatchf., 12. — Nelsox, IJeits, J.T. ; N. Y., 1845. 0. A verdict upon an issue ordered by a court of equity is in no just seiisi* final upon the facts it finds, or binding upon the judgment of the court, until a subsecpu'iit hearing upon its n;erits, and a decree rendered thereon l)y the court. Allen V. Blunt, 3 Story, 740. — Stoi:y, J. ; Mass., 1845. 7. Whether a verdict given in a suit a,t law is evt'r evidence of any thing but the fact that it was rendered, unhiss a judgment has been duly rendered thereon. Ibid., 740. 8. If cojjies of a patent are erroneous, the Connnissioncr of Patents has the power, and ought to make them con- form to the i)atent itself and to the rec- ord. Woodworth v. Hull, 1 Wood. & ]Min., 200. — WoonnuKY, J. ; Mass., 1840. 9. Whether original letters of the Commissioner of Patents, coming from a public officer, under an official o.atIi, and on official business, are not legal and competent evidence in the light of a public record or document, as to the matters referred to therein ; query. Al- len V. Blunt, 2 Wood. & Min., 128, 129. — WooDBUKY, J.; Mass., 1846, 10. A former verdict of /(Jismissal be- tween the same parties on an issue out wJ^iT. EVIDENCE, O. 1. ff. 206 !1P»1 WITNKSH. (JOMPETKNCY AM) CUKDir (•»'; (IKNKRAI.I.Y. of chancery in a bill asking for nn in- juiulit)!!, and upon an original Hpecifica- tiuii, is not adniiHsiblu in cvidunci' in a unit at law i'or damages for violation of (he patent, with corrected Hpeciticatioiis, iiml in no case is Kueh a verdict a bur to tlic second action, unless judgment was rciulcred on such verdict against the jiliiiiitiff, or such verdict of dismissal was on the merits. Ibid., l;J'2, 134. 11. A verdict in a patent case and sus- taining a patent, can in no case be ovi- ilcncc at law or in equity, and in another action brought by a witness called by the plaintirt' on the trial in the former action, an CUKDIT (»'; UKNKUAI.I.Y. ^»5ji? iiU'oiii|)«'t(!iit, I'xci'pt Hiu'h as iiriscs from luH own ackuowh'dL^iiiont. Hut if it hIiouIiI, in any ttnlKsctjimil Htiigo of the oxaininatiun, appear by other cvideiiee that he is not a eonipetent witness, the court will set him asiile. Emma v. Ent- on, IVt. C. C, 'M8. — Washington, J. ; Pa., 1810. 2. A person was oflered as n witness in Ix'hiilf of a defi-ndant, in an aetion for tlie iiifiiMLji'ment of a patent, sut^h person heint; also a defendant in anotlier suit broujijht for an infrintifement of the mime patent, and siieh witness had also contril)Ute(l, with other defendants, to defray his expenses in attending the trial, where lie was ealled as a witness, but there »vas no agreement between the eontril»iito:-s as to damages or eosts. JIiLf, that the witness had no interest that was dependent on the event of the suit, and that he was therefore compe- tent. Eiuihh v. Jlittk'k, ;3 Wasli., 412, 413.— WAsiiiNCiTox, J.; Pa., 1818. [Af- firmed l822,^>o.s< 7.] 3. It is for the jury to say, what credit is to be given to the testimony of op- posing witnesses, in determining which, they must take into calculation every circumstance affecting their veracity, whether it concern their moral charac- ter, or arise from interest or from feel- ing favorable to either party. Ibid., 423, 424. 4. Wliere a fact in controversy may exist, without a violation of i)robability, and the proof is by witnesses exclusively on one side, there is nothing against which to wcigli their credit ; if an ob- jection to their credit be worth any thing, it must be to the full extent of rejecting their testimony. The jury cannot compromise the matter. They must decide that the fact is so or is not so. Ibid., 424. r>, A person liaving an interest luilv in tlie (piestion, and not in the event of a patent-suit, is a eompelenl witni'ss. /'Jeans V. Eaton, 7 Wheat., 426.— Sto- KY, J.; Sup. Ct., 1822. 0. In general, the liability of a wit- ness to a like action, or his sL-uidiiiir in tlie same predicament Avith the party sued, if the verdict cannot be given in evi(h'nce for or against him, is an inter- est in the (juestion, and will not exclude the witness. Ibid., 425. 7. It is no objection to the compe- tency of u witness, that he is sued in another action for an infringement of the same patent. Evann v. JAltick, 7 Wheat., 408. — Stouy, J.; Sup. Ct., 1H22. 8. In an action for an infringement, the defendant, to j)rove that the plain- tiif was not the original inventor of tlio thing patented, gave in evidence a prior patent for an alleged similar machine as that of })laintiff, and then oiVered tlie patentee of such i)rior patent as a wit- ness to prove the priority of his inven- tion. Held, that the witness was com- petent, as he had no interest in the event of the suit. IVeadicdl v. Jiliuhi, 4 Wash., 704. — Washington, J. ; Pa., 1827. 9. A workman employed by a person to make articles which are alleged to infringe a patent, is a competent wit- ness to prove such inaking, as he is not liable, as such wbrkman, to an iietion for infringement. Delano v. Scott, Gil- pin, 498. — IIoPKiNSON, J.; Pa., 1834. 10. If a witness is interested, he is excluded, however small the amount of his interest may be. Arnold v. Bishop, MS. (App. Cas.)— Cranch, Ch. J. ; D. C, 1841. 11. But where the interest of the witness in the patent applied for Avas KVIDEXCE, (i. I. a. 297 WITNKHS. COUI'KTBNOY AKO CKhDIT OF; UBNRRAIXT. tlie s:iiiK', wliftlicr flio patent hIioiiM 1)c> ifr:ititi'tl to oiu! n|i|»lioiiiit or to tho other, l/il(f, tli.it lio WHS a coiiijtctciit witness. J/,i(t(/i/>'in% IMS. (App. Cas.) — CuANin, Ch. J.; I). C, lH4t;. 13. Tiie fact that a person calhMl as a witness in belialf of the phiintitf is iii- tcivstcd in tho s.'une patent on which suit is hrouglit, but in other .sections of the country, hut none in tlie county where the phiintill . right is, does not reiiilcr him an incompetent witiii'ss for the pl.'iiiitiir. Jiurk V. Ift;rrnly. That can only apply where there is wilful, corrupt falsehood in one particular, amounting to jx-ijin-y, in which case all the other testimony of the witness is to be rejected. Marxhrdl V. Mce, MS. (Ai»p. Cas.) — Duni.oi*, J.; D. v., 185;}. 10. The testimony of a witness, di- rectly or indirectly interested in the pat- ent, or its benefits, is not admissible, in an interferi'iice, as to the question of priority of invention. Ihid. 20. In considering testimony, weight should be given to it in proportion to tho competency of tho witness to judge of the matters sworn to. Allen v. Hunter^ McLean, 310, 312.— McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1855. 21. Tho refusal of a witness to an- swer on his cross-examination, questions which are material and proi)er, will af- fect the credit of his testimony. Cor- nell V. Hyatt, MS. (App. Cas.) — Mor- SELL, J.; D. C, 1856. 22. Where a witness in other respects stands fair and free of suspicion, his statement under oath as to the fact of invention, will not be rejected because he may have made contradictory state- ments elsewhere; but where the rela- tion in which he stands to the cause is acs- s •■ ■'^f.i^''^-^m i 1.1.1, W^ljfiii 208 KVIDKXCK, G. 1. b. 2. WITNKMH. ASMIONOK, OOMrKTKNCr 0»'. KXAMINATION AM) IMI'KACIIMKNT OJ", ■■V. ■k % Huc'li iiH to mako it ivasoiiaMi; to HUp- jiosc he is uixIiT a Htroiig idan in lavor of ouu of thu paitic'H, the rule is dillt'i- ent, espociall^ when he tcstiflfs m to things talking piat'O when no one else wus prosiMit. Handtra v. Parsons, MS. (App. C'as.)— Mou.,Ki.L, J. ; 1). C, I a51). 1!;J. If uhj(H tion is not made to the competency ol a Avitness on liis exami- nation, and bctli [»arti('S examine him, it will be too late to take the objection afterward. Allen \. Alter, MS. (Apj). Cas.)— MojwELL, J.; D. C, 18(50. 6. Of Aasignor of Invention in Intorferoncos. 1. A person who is nominally a party to the i)rocee(ling in an application for a patent, cannot be a witness in such case, even though he has parted with all liis interest in the matter. Ycarsley v. White, iMS. (i^)l). Cas.) — Muusell, J. ; D. C, 1853. 2. Where, t iierefore, ono of two joint inventors was called as a witness in a case of interfe'ence, between such joint inventors, and that of another party, Held, notwithstanding that lie had as- signed all his interest in the invention, that he Mas not a competent witness. Ibid. 3. An inventor who had assigned all his interest in the invention to another, was offered as a witness in favor of his assignee, upon an interference, to prove priority of invention, and was objected to as being intcsrested, Held, although he was not affected by pecuniary inter- est or advantage to render him incom- l^etent, yet he niust in the nature of things be suppoised to view most favor- ably the success of his assignee, and to feel a prejudice against tlie other side. O'Eielly v. Smith, MS. (App. Cas.)— MOKSELL, J.J D. C, 1853. 4. In an interference, a party to the proceeding, as an inventor, ciumot l)t' made a witness, even though he Ims ns- signed all his interest in his invention to another. Jllll v. Dunklee, MS. (Apii. Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,, .1.; D. C, 1857. C. In an interference ease, the tostl- inony of the inventor lumself, tlioiii'h he luis assigned his invention, cannot ho received — he is in form and substance ;i party to the issue. I'Janiex v. Iliflmrds 3IS. (Aj)p. Cas.) — iMeukick, J.; JJ. c., 185!). 0. The testimony of a party to tho record, as of an inventor, though he had actually transferred all his interest in the invention, is not adtnissihle upon an interference. Gibhs v. Jo/inson, MS. (A])p. Cas.) — MousKi.r., J. ; I), C, I860. 7. The assignor Avho has sold his in- vention, is not competent as a witness for liis assignee, to i)rovc priority ofiii. vention, upon an interference declared. Jiarstow v. Swan, MS. (A])p. Cas.)— MiiKUicK, J.; D. C, 18G0. 2. Mcamination and ImpeacJiment of, 1. A witness cannot be asked as to a mere ct»llateral fact, having no relevancy to the issue, in order to draw from him an answer Avhicli might, by other evi- dence, be shown incorrect, and therchy to discredit him. Odiorne v. Winklcy, 2 Gall., 53.— Stoby, J. ; Mass., 1814. 2. Evidence to 'discredit a witness of the opposite party, cannot be introduced if the court consider that it cannot have such an effect. Evana v. Eaton, I'et., C. C, 338.— Washington, J.; Pa., 1816. 3. Plaintiff's counsel cannot inquire of a witness, whether third persons had offered to take a licence from the plain- tiff, for the use of his invention, and pay SI EVIDENCE, Ci. 2. S0» WITN'KHH. EXAMINATION AND IMI'KACIIIIICNT Of. for tilt' siimc, it not li!ivin({ het'U proveil tliat Hiu'li purNoiiN Iwul tiHud iiii invent ion similar to plaiutiirM. Juuma v. J/it- tirk,-i Wiinli., 413. — WANlUN»iTuN, J.; 4. A witness cnnnot bo cftlloil to tus- tily as to what tltinl jmrtiits may have stiiteil, an to an invuntion, such l)L'iiijj; niore lu-arHuy oviik'ncu. Tho purtirH rniiii whom tlio witnesH recoivcd thu in- formation should Imvo been called. Ihii/., nt. 5, I'laiiit ill's' coiuiHel cannot iiujiiirc of witnesses as to acts between plain- tiils and thinl persons or straiif^ers as to his patent ; these ou^lit not to preju- dice the defendant. J'Jvana v, ILttirk^ 1 Wheat., 4C9, 470. — Stouy, J.; Sup. a, 1822. (J. It is incumbent upon those insist- iiii; upon (he ri«l(^-i,Uu;Jj Wu-'Wwk-. ,, e^vjii^:.*^ 900 ITIDKNCE. G. 8. II. 1. rAUTIMt, KXAMINATION OF. AUANDONMKNT. 4 ■A .'». /'iirfit'M, J'JxitminatioH of, Siio uImu Kvidknck, O. 1. II. 1. A party to un Intorffronco in cotn- potciif (<» prov*' tilt' loMH of ii pjipcr or drawing of his invention. Pf.rrjw Cor- nell^ M.S. (App. Chs.) — Chanuii, Ch. J.; D.C., 1847. 2. As a general rule, a party cannot be a witness in his own eause. Hi/ckv. JJur/nance, I Hlatchf.,;)24. — Nklhon, J.; N. Y., 1848. .1. Nor will ho bo permitted to avail himself, by indirect means, of evideiiee which would be rejeeted as incoinpe- tent if offered directly. T/ud., M'it. 4. A l>arty to an interference is a competent witness to prove the loss of a paper, if lost out of his own possession, and not destroyed l)y fraud, the exist- ence and contents of such paper beinj^ jiroveil by other testimony. Yearsleyw lirookJiiUl., .MS. (App. Cas.) — Mokskll, J.; I). C, iH.^n. .'). If two persons, from their rela- tionship to each other, have had jiccess to such paper, they should both join in the depositicm as to its loss. [hid. 0. Upon a refercn(;e to a master, in an equity suit for the infrinjjement of a j)atent, to take an account, a defendant cannot be examined as a witness in his own favor, if objected to by the plain- tiff. Foote V. Sihhy, •?, Blatchf., 508.— Hall, J.; N. Y., 1850. 7. Nor can a defendant be so exam- ined on his own behalf by his own coun- s ■!, even though he has been called and examined as a witness by the plaintiff, or was sworn by the master upon the plaintitTs application. Ibid, 610. 8. In an action for an invasion of pl&intifTs trade-mark, the plaintiff is not pnvilegsd from answering a question which may reveal the %e.i'n't of his tiaiic as such a ipiestion m.iy be pi-rtiucut t» the issue in determining the arnoiint ,,f profits. IturncH v. Phaloit, \\\ |[,,^^ IV., fi.ll, 6;j'2, fi:)5, OyO.—lIoKKMAN, J^ N. Y., 1H(J0. ' ■' It. A defendant cannot be requin-il to testify whether Im has us<'d laltels or trade-marks like the plaintifFs, if Ijj^ aflirmative answers thereto may tend to convict the witness of an ofl'cnco imn. ishable by statute. JiyasH v. Sidliiuni 'if How. Pr., 52.— IJONNKV, J.; K. Y. fsdo. 10. Where a state law made it amis- demeanor to vend goods with a fonrid label, lldd, that the tlefendant coulil not bo recpiired to testify wIicIIilt Im had sold goods with a label like that of the pl.iintitrs. fhid.^ 52. 11. The judiciary act of SepteinlHr 1781), g .^4 (1 St.at. at Large, p. fiu), ado[>tiiig the laws of the several stiitcs as rules of decisions in the courts of tlio United States, embraces laws rciatini' to evidence. ITausskrirrht \ . ('/<,i/p,,ul, lBlack,4.'? 1 .—Nelson, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1 8G1. 12. Where, therefore, under the laws of any st.ate, parties m.ay be examined as witnesses in their own beh.'ilf, a plain- tiff, in an action in the United Stiitcs courts, for infringement of his patent, is a competent Avitness .as to the issues raised therein. Ibid.., 431. 13. A like decision w.as also made in Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427.— Nelson, J.; Sup. Ct., 1801. II. As TO Particular Issues. 1. Abandonment. See also Abandonment, B. 1. If, before a patent is taken out, the inventor looks on and sees his invention EVIDKNCK, H. 1. aoi AMANrxiNMRNT. mi n iim iiiloK*'"'*''"' UM',wltli()iitoltjtit IiIh con- duct iw* ()<|niviilt ri)^lil to tin- liiil)li<'» '/'reiiifwill \, ///(n/(7(, 4 VViihIi., -QH— WAHlllHtUON, .1.; I'll., 1H'J7. 'i. TIk^ intciiiioti of tlic in- vi'iilor. Wliutt'vcr may Ite his intention, it' ho MiirtVrs liin invention to j^o into public line, tlirou)t,'h any nieaiiH what- ever, without un iniin(>(liate aHsertioi )f his ri>,'hf, h(! is not (Hititlt><| to n patent; iiDr will a palt^nt, ohtaineil under Nnch circiinistaiices, protoet hiH riKlit. if/i'nn V. Coof>€r, 7 Pet., 323. McLkan, .1. ; Sii]). ('!., 183.'l. ;i. There must bo ovidenco of a diH- tinct charaotur qh to iibandonmeiit, Hliowiii!,' HUeh 'in intention. The natu- ral presumption in, that a peiHon who JiHS invented u inaehinc would not ^ive it to tho world. Ilovcy v. Henry ^ 3 Wist. Law Jour., 156. — Wooduuky, J.; MiHS., 1845. 4, Where it WfiS alle/fed that a pat- ciitoc had abandoned his inventiun, and tho lapse of time between tho grant of the patent and tho commencement of suit was urjjod as a proof of that fact, /M/, that tho plaintifF was entitled to rebut any presumption of abandonment by showint; acts prosecuting or assert- ing his discovery. Emerson v. Iloyg, 2 Blatchf., 12, 13.— Beits, J. ; N. Y., 1845. 5. Neither a stipulation for tho sale of an invention before it is completed, nor a sale of such invention during iiis application for a patent, is an abandon- ment, or such a use as gives it to the public. Tho inventor may do this with- out vitiating his claim. Sparkman v. Siggins, 1 Blatchf., 209.— Beits, J.; N. Y., 1846. 0. Whether the Mnlt> and nianuraiture for Hoinu few months before the applica* tioii for a patent, of an Httiele, as fin ornanieiital biittnii, for the desi|;ii of which letters pitlent had Iteen granted, and whieli design was apparent on the article itself, would amount to an aban- doniiieiit, is a (|iteHlion of fart to Ite set- tleil liy the jury. JiimtU v. (Jurclti/, I Ulatehf., 21U, 250.— Nklso.v, J. ; N.Y., 1H47. 7. Where experiments ii** to an inven* tioii were imperfect and unsatisfaclory, and Hubsei|ui('N(>('nco in tlu! iiHe of liis invun- tioii l)y othi'iH — a n»'j;Ioct to aMNt>rt UU olairnM hyHnit or ollicrwis*', an omisMioii to Ht'II lioiMiNt's, atu'ffiot't to make offorts to realize nny am V. Miiyor., itcy of New York^ MS. — IIai.i,, J.; N. Y., 1850. 2. Frnmlulent Intent. 1. Tlio (loLfrco of ovidcncc rcit/m<»ni, I'et., 240. — MAlwn.iit, Ch. J.; Sup. Cl., IH.'J2. .1. I'nder j$ U of the act of 18:1T, ,],,. (■hiring a patent valid, though einltiic. ing something not the invention of tho patentee, if su«'h excess has been insvit. ed in the Np<>citi(>ation by mistake, ainl without any fraudulent intent, the imt. entee is n«»t bound to prove aflirtnativc ly th.Ht such excesH was insertcil |,y mistake, and without a fraudulent in. tent, as the law presumes no duo it have acted illegally or fraudiilciitlv. Ifincnt of n tiutt'iitt (>\i*l<:ti('ci U not nihiiiHMihUt on the iMtrt of tlir |)tttt>iit«>r- Miii^ li:t*l olVci'ol to taki> lh-<'iis«'<« of him, it not )iu\iii({ Imm'm hliown tliat Niich |ii'i'- Ron uHotl a innchhij Nitnilnr to tliat of till' putcntt'o. Hiuinn v. llitto'k, :i Wa-li., H:l. — Wahiiinuton, J.; I'li., ISIB. 4, Umler tho pica l»y tlit- cK-fi'tnlaiit of not K'"'*)' •'"' plaiMtilV tiiiiHt provit not nici'i'ly tli.it tliu (lofcinlaiit liad iii:iilc>, ii.srHcnil)lfil tlif one for wliicli lu' liatl mo obtainnl a pat- (iit. Mnt if tlu) ililViTrnct' lictwrcn tliciM l»o only in form, or proportions, tlicy arcllii) Name in Ic^alconlfmpliition. Dixon V. Moijrr, I Wash., 71.— Wakii- i.v.aoN, J. ; I'a., iw'-'l. T). Thf plaintilV must nhnw that the infriiij^i'tni'nt took place aftor the time (if hiH application, or tho ilato of his jiiitciit. Hut if tho (It'ft'tKlant attempts ti» avoid the patent l»y hhowin;^ that the patentee waH not the original dis- coveror of the thing jjatented, tho pat- ent will l»o considered as revertinj^hack to tlio time of the original discover). Ibid., 12. 0. In an action for an infringement of a patent, evidence that the invention of tlic defendant i.s better than that of the plaintiff is iiiadmissiltle, except so far .19 it goes to show a Hubstantial dif- llronce between tho two. Alden v. Ikwey, 1 Story, 337. — Stokv, J.; ^.lass., 1840. 7. To show an itifringemcnt by the defendant the proof rests nj)on the plaintiff, lirooka v. Jiichtell, 3 ]\Ic- Lean, 453. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1844. 8. To show an infringement, tlie burden of nroof i8 upon tho plaintiff. To maintain his case hi* muMt pthow thai thore haM been u ptubx^antiul invaftion of his patent by the defenilaiit. Wnnh- hum V. iioiihl, W Story, I iU. — Siouv. J.; Ma«s., IH4I. 0. Where a plaintitf haM made out a firinin J\tii,> case of infringenu'iit, iiml • he defendant imtb*rtakes to nnike out a special defence, as that tlie invention h.id been nfetl at ditVerelit places before plaintiff's invention, it is proper to in* struct the jnry that the defendant, in respect to tlies<> particulars, must render them probalde, and must turn the scales in his favor. Allen v. JilmiU 'i Wood, it Min., 145. — WooDiiniv, .1.; Mas"., |N4tl. 10. In onb'r to mak(' out the fact of infringement, the plaintitV nnist prove thiit the defemlant has used his inven- tion, either in the precise lorni in which it is «'onstructcd, or in a I'ornj and on princi|»les substantially the sann«. /'(//•• /vr V. Stilta, ft McLean, tl2. — Lkavi-h', .r. ; Ohio, 1H40. 11. It is not, however, necessary that the structure or machine used by tho defendant shotdd be tho samo in ap- pearance, form, or proportions, .is that invented and patentetl by the pl.iiritiir. If th« operative iirinciples of the two machines bo the same, the substantial identity contemplated 'oy the patent law is established. If>iuhi( relied on is a description of such ma- chine, contained in a written publication, such description must be sutlicieiitly full and j»recise to enable a mechanic! to C(mstrnct it, and must be in all material respects like that covered liy, or descri- bed in the plaintiff's patent. l*nK)f of a nrevious structure, bearing some re- '.-5 ^M'sP^' *' ' w i>lli«INAUTY AND rMOWTT Of. MmMuiKf ill aomo rmpoctN to tlio|iliiin- tiil"« iin|iri>v«'iiii>ntM, himI which tiiiuhl hiivp h«'«>ii Mti^^cntlvt' i>r iili'iiN, or li' (liN"(iv(iit. Pttrktt' v. Stitii*, rt Mi'Lfiiti, 01, (JJ.~F.icAvnT, J.; (Miio, IHii). |:i. 't'lic ImidK'Ii of proof Im ii|ion th«> |iltiiiititf to mIiow tliiit du-rt' liiis licfii nil iiifriti^t'iiK'iit. ,/o/uiKon V. Hoot, MS. — Si'UAoi K, J.; INIasN., |m5m. II. It is iiiciiinl)(ii till' |iliiiiilitr ill till act ion tor an iiifriii.i;t'nifiit of a patt'iit to niHkc out anirtiiattvrly to the Hatiffiu'tion of tlii> jury that his iiivon- tioii has Im'cii infrin^'i'ij, iMfurc ht> is «'iitill«'(| to a vordifl. Juffico, r()ntainin)r liis application for a patent, and enclosing a specification Hiibsiantlal- ly agreeing with liis patent afterward issued, and asserting his claim as inven- tor to the invention described, are i)ro- j)erly adinissihle in evidence to show the existence of such facts. Pcttibone V. Derringer, 4 Wash., 210, 219.— Washington, J. ; Pa., 1818. 8. In an action for a violation of phiinlllV'M patent, proof that the phtin. titt' at a certain time had made the tliinir puleiiltMl, and Hhich liad iii>ver helnri! Iieen xeeii or heard of hy the wiliit» .(■,_ i, priniii J'lifii eviileiice that it wa-iiiMut ««1 )>y the patentee, until other evii|i>ij<'|. in gi\eil to nIioW it had lieeii previoiulv known, /'itntni-k V. lHnlm/nr^ \ Wanli. ftH. — WA*iiiNoro>, J. ; Pa., Ih^.^. 4. The Hileiic*', liowever, of kih'Ii party iiM to IiIn claim of original iiiveiitloii »t such time may he opposed to NUch evi. deuce, hut whether it will he nutTicictti to oulwi'igh it, the jury are t«» deeitU'. /AiV/., 542. ft. The testimony of n wilncM timt h(( had seen hclore plainfitV's inviiitinn .•irticlcs rescmhling those prnductd liv plaintilt'*rt invention, hut had no knouj. edge how they were made, is not Hiifli- cieiit evidence to invalidate plaiiititl'\ patent, on tlu! ground that he was imt the original discoverer of the inveiitinn, or that tlie saine liad hceii in iimo ho. fore his invention, unlcHS tho jury can safely conclude from the appearance nf such articles that they were made hy an instruinent Iiaving the improvement, or emhodyingthe principle of piaiiititV's patent. Ihiulwdl v. JUm/en, 4 Wanli., 70(1 — WAsiiiN. K. Tlit< tli'cUrutionMnixl i-oiiviTmilloiiM ol' a |iiit<'iitt*«*, i«tiitlii}{ tliiit liu liiiil inn> itii iiivi'litinn, :»>**i Mi'ti uf nil iiKKi rtliiii III' lii" r'mUt at lint iiiim to tlir fMiiit ,,(' tint ilctiiiU iiiiiiU* known liy liim, ili,,ii,'li imt i»f tiu'ir I'xinlciH'f 111 nny f.iiii.r pci'lo.!. I'/,;i. «0 7'/Y/<. /». A'. \. .sV/h»/'.«"", I* I'l'l., •<'•. — Sionv, .?.; Sup. t'l., •^•O. 0. TIm> ticfliinilion of a piirly tli;it nt ikfortaiti tinio liu liml invi>iili'; i'* not cviili'iic*', C'i»'firii.si)ii:il()i' tloiilit tliat tlu'ic w.i<« II piior iiiVftitioti, lu'ciktiMi> tlic plain- till' liiiH a ri>;lif. to rout upon hin pati-iit lor lii"* inviiitioii till its \.iliilily is ovfi- tliiown. It'llitTi' \s a rtasoiialilf iloiilil as to IIh' priority ol" iiivciitioii, llu' pat- ciitco is I'lititK'il to till' bciu'llt of it. WiiKfif>nrn V. Ooiiltf, 3 Story, 14'J. — Siuuv, J.; Mass., 1814. 11. 'rii<> liiiu' of tlif iiivoiitioM of an iiiiprovi'inciit to n niacliiiiu iiuist ne(ri's- garily procivU' tlm timo wlii'ii the iiivi'ii- tion is applicil to a inacliinc in operation. Ciniifill V. J'lir/i/iKi-sf, MS. (App. Cas.) -CitANcai, Ch. .!.; D. ('., iKi?. 12. Priority of ap|)Iication for a pat- ent (Iocs not (k'fitlo priority of invoii- tion. JWri/ V. Connll, MS. (App. Cas.) -CitANcii, Cli. .T.; 1). ('., 1H47. in. Ill a<|ucstion as to tlio orij^inalily "f an invention, wlioro ono party has a patent, the jn'oof of want of orij^inality must 1)0 speeitlc and «h'eisive to over- throw such patent. TYoy Iron t£' Kail Fac. V. Corning, 1 IJIatclif., 472. — Inelson, J.; N. Y., 1849. 20 H. When n<)Upiiti* nri^t'Nu* to prior* ily of inveiilioii, It piileiilee i litid tiikeii out hiH patent at that time, /'or* k'r\. //iiliitf, 7 Wexl. I.aw Joiir., 4'.'4. K \NK. .1. ; 1*11., Im40. l.">. NVheri' the patenteu iliM'overcil, in IH'.>7, that to direet water into n ro< aetioii wheel mo us to ^'ive it eiiiMiIar liloliotl uilhiil the wheel ill the i|iree< linii of its rotation, woiiM iiureaoe tho useful vtfvi't, itnd the npplieallon then was to n liori/.onlnl wheel, and aller, in IH'.M, an nppliealioii of ||li.^ prinripio was tnade to a verti<'itl wheel, and the Ititter nrran^eiiieiit was tlie one patent* ed, //.A/, that if the dllVereliee „f tiiiH' had \u'r\i material, the di- overv * of the more important part of the pat- ented iinprovenieiils would have Im en referred to tho dato of lH'.i7. /A/»A, 4.' I. Id. Pates in an nreount hook, in which was niado adruwiiij^ of an iii- vi'iilion, aro not coneliisivo ovideneo that the invention was made at the time of Miieh tlates. Jillnon v. Win- «(*■, MS. (.Vpp. Ca«.) — C'u.vNoii, Ch. J.; I). ('., 1850. 17. l'r(»of that n drawing of an in- vention was hIiowii hy A at a eertaiti time fii'J'arc, as to whieh, however, the witnesses were not po>iii\e, hut with- out any model, and without pro. if that any articles were manufaelure.l until '""o <{ffi''' the well estaldished inven- tion of the same thiiij^ by l», is not suflifieiit to estahlish priority of inven- tion in A. Ihid. ^ 18. A defeiitlant in a patent suit, using a maehine jtatenter/n?ay(/r/e evidence of the facts of first and original invcii- tion and utility, and nmst prevail, niilcss there is other evidence to overcome such 2>rima facie presumption ; and wliero there has been a renewal, such renewal is als;) prima, facie evidence as to such matters, and of course adds weight to ihe 2^>'i>'i(f facie e'.idence furuis!i('(l by the original patent. Ransom v. Mni/or cCc, of Neio York, MS.— ILvix, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 28. The patent furnishes a presump- tion ill favor of the originality uf the invention described in it. Belly. Dan- iels, 3IS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1 858. 29. The question of priority of inven- tion is for the jury to determine. Bur- tholomew v. Saioyer, MS. — Ixgersoli., J. ; N. Y., 1859. 30. The patent is prima facie evi- dence that the patentee is the first n\v\ original inventor of the improveniciils described in the' specification. Cahoon V. liinf/, MS.— Clifford, J.; Me., 1859. 31. Where ovigin.al drawings of an invention were made, the^ are the best evidence of such invention, ami on the non-production of them, uulets ic i^Stt' KVIDKXCE, 11. 5. no7 INVKSTIOX, NllVKI.rV AM) ITIUTY OK. <'iillv aoi'ouiitcil f(ir as by bciiij^ lost, tliu |,.h;i1 |ii('siiiii|ilioii is, that if |ir(t(liuT(l ilicv woiiltl show thu facts to be luifiivor- iiblo. Heech v. I'uckir, MS. (App. Cas.) _-.Moi!SKM., J. ; 1>. C, isuu. ;i'J. Tlio priiiui fui'ic force of a pat- ent, as to priority of invention on the iiiirt of tlio patentee, when once de.stroy- (m1 by evitlence of jtrior invention on lliL> part of another, cainiot be restored 1)V tlio patent itself, but only by specillc testimony from witnesses. Harxfaio v. Sinoi, MS. (Apj). Cas.)— ]Mi;uui(iv, J. ; I). C, 1800. 33. Time, as to an invention, cannot, aiiv more than a straij^ht line bo uieas- iireil by the senses, by rejjjarding its cMiiitiimity, but is fixed in the memory liv the relation or succession of events. When, therefore, a jterson can affirm that he can and does recall the succes- sion of an event to another, which other U siisc('ptil)le of independent ascertain- ment, the certaitity of the latter is fully ieilo(!ted upon the former. i!>lierw(jod V. ISherman, MS, (App. Cas.) — Mku- iMcic, J.; D. C, 1800. 34. It is not proof of the want of originality or novelty in an invention fur which an American citizen has ob- tained a patent, that it may have been kiiown or used in a foreign country, unless it appears that the invention or improvement was patented in such Ibr- oign country, or there described in some imltlic work. Judson v. Cc^w, MS. — Li:.vvrrr, J.; Ohio, 1800. 35. IJut to make such a defence avail- able, it must aj)pear that the imi>rove- iiient which has been known in a foreign country l.vs been so clearly and intelli- gibly described, that the invention could be made or constructed by a competent raeclmiiic. A mere suggestion or in»- Pftifect description of an invention would not be sufficient to defeat the American patent. Jliiil. ;)0. Kvidence cannot bo received of actual iise and kiH)\vledge of an inven- tion in a foreign country prior to the tinu" of the invention here, ii. order to defeat the .Vmerican pattnt, but the de- fendants must be confmed to the (!<'scrip- tion of the invention as found in printed |iublications or patents; they cannot go bi'yond such publication or patents, be- cause no prior use abroad, unless the invention has been described in a print- cil publication or has been patented, will affect the validity of the i)atent in this country. Il»id. 37. The mere fact tliat a jiarty is a witness to the application of anotlier f r a patent for a particular invention, does not estop such party from after- ward claiming to be himself the original inventor of such invention. ITeri'iiiiit wlieii tlie iiiveiitioii on the jihiintiir's own showlnj; is not only of lio use, but :ui imposition on tlie pulilic, it ni:iy he tU)ubtc'(l wiietliiTjieourl wouM tianscond its powers to consiiK'r and (h'- clde upon the question of utility as nuvt- ter of law. Ibid., 204. f). "Where the ilefiMidant liad adver- tised the plaintiff's invention as one of the most useful, and liad jiuhlished cer- tifit-ates of its jjjre.at utility, Ildil, in an netion of infringement against him, that he eonld not deny the utility of the invention, and that it M'as umieees- sary for the plaintiff to introduee evi- denec other than sueh admissions, Stan- Icy V. W/u'p/)le, 2 ]MeLean, 30.— 3Ic- Leax, J.; Ohio, 1839. 0. To determine whether an inven- tion is new, the jury may iuipiire ■whether the maehines had been exten- sively built and used, or whether they had been tried and thrown away ; and if they had been extensively used, whether this could happen if their mode of operation Avas not new. Ddvoll v. Jjrow/i, 3 West. Law .lour., 151. — WoonnuuY, J. ; Mass., 1845. V. The i)resuniption of novelty and usefulness, arising from the ivima facte charaeter of the patent, may be rebut- ted by affidavits, on the application for an injunction where the patent is not ancient. Query., "Whether it may be Avl.en the patent has beer (reissued) re- newed under the act of 183G. Wicker- shffff V. Jones, 2 Wharton's Dig., 413. —Kane, J.; Pa., 1848. 8. The oath of the patentee, required upon his application for a patent, con- stitutes a part of the letters patent, and is in evidence to a jury, and furiiis ;i legal ground for the presumption ut'il:,. novelty anil utility of the patcntci's claim until the c(tntrary is proveil; tin. burden of proof being on the def'cn,!. ant. Parkir v. Stik's, 5 ^McLean, 00.— r.KAvrrr, J. ; Ohi". ^H\^. 0. It is the province of the court t.i ileeide what constitutes novelty, mikI ot the jtiry to determine from the evidi'iKi; adduced, whether the patentee's invcn. tion is new. Ibid., (JO. 10. An invention must be to simiic extent useful. But courts are not ri^iil or strict on this point. In the abseiie of j»roof by the defendant, tliiit tin; thing patented is absolutely frivdloiis and worthless, the presumption of util- ity raised by tlie patent itself is sutli- cient to sustain the patent. Ibid., C:'. 11. Where in an action for an in- fringement of plaintiff's patent, it w.i.s proved that a machine was constructed before the plaintilf's invention, ;iiiil identical with it, for a person who livui] some distance from the place of (oii- struction, and was taken away by liim to be put up, and was never afterwanl seen by the witness, wlio assisted in it> construction, ILld, that the evidence, if believed, was sufficient to establi.«li the fact of a v. ant of novelty in tk' plaintifl''s invention, though there was no proof to show that the jn-ior niadiiiie was ever used. Parker v. Ferguson, 1 Blatchf., 408.— Nelsox, J.; K Y, 1849. 12. A patentee took a patent for a new process, mode, or inethod of con- verting puddler's balls into blooms in rolling mills, which consisted in rolliiii,' the ball between reciprocating plates or tables, or between a revolving cylin- der, and a stationary curve dsegmental trough. Evidence was given of previ- KVIDKXCK, II. 5. 30!» INVKMTIUX, SOVKLTY AXI) UriMTY OF. inns ;i nfthu oiitoi-'s •il; llu' 11, CO.— ioiirt to , iiiiil lit L'v'uU'lU'f « iiivcu- to sonu' not y'v/\'\ iilisn IT lh:it ill.; frivolous 11 of util- f is sutli- 7>/ evidt'iico, estaUisli ty in tl'L' there was r niacliiut' Irgiison, 1 N. Y., Jitent for a |o(l of cou- bloonis in ill rolling Ig plates or ]\-ing cylin- Isegmental of previ- (Ills us(! of m.'U'liiiu'H for iniHiiii; iuxl {■oii<'rte, MS. (App. Cas.)— MoRSELL, J. ; 1). C, 1853. 19. And it is enough if it is capable of use, for some beneficial piu'pose ; the degree of ntility, whether larger or smaller, is not a subject of consideration. Ibid. 20. According to the American cases, the result alone, when the effects pro- duced are moi*e economical, useful, and beneficial, or a better article, is not con- clusive evidence of the novelty of an in- vention, but it must appear that the re- ^M^-mt >', kim^ a»,''Uwii^^ :m h'^'^mBy 310 EVIDKN'CK, H. T). SiS^" ^^'W * 7r' ?i.: •S^l:i= '%^' Rs^i "■"**i.„ ■*1 INVKNIIU.V, NdVKI.TY AM' UTILITY OK. Milt is jtro(liic((l l>ysiiiiii' iic'.v iirnccsH, de- vice, or in.'icliiiicrv, tlioiiLrli in such cisc l)ilt slii^lit (•\i(lriic(' of novelty will l»e ro(iniie(l. Yenrdoj v. linmkjfilil, MS. (Ajip. CiiH.)— .^I(»l{s|.;f.i , J. ; 1). C, 1853. lil. Uniler tlu* Kii;,'lisli cases, tlie re- sult alone, inider like circuinstaiices, is conclusive cvidi'iico of invention. Ihid. 22. Tli(! jury are to determine iVoni the facts in the case as to the novelty of the invention, liatt'in v. 'I'dytjiirt, 17 How., 85. — McLka.v, J. ; Snp. Ct., 1854. 23. The fact of the use of a patented invention I»y a defendant, is evio. 24. The ]»atent is prinxf fitrie evi- dence of the novelty of the thinsj; jiat- cnted. 2h!se v. J'/ulpti, J :\reAHis., 49. — ^IcAi.i.TSTKi!, .T. ; Cal., 1855. •2'). AVhether there is any novelty in an iiiveiition or arrangement of j)i;vts, is a (itiestioii of fact for the jury to de- termine, u[»oii !i view of all the evidence in the case. SicHcxx. Borden, i] Blatchf., 540.— Nei.so.v, .1.; N. Y., IB.-jO. 20. A i)ateiit, when introduced in ev- idence, whether it be an orij;inal or re- issued one, is prlnid facie (.'y'uh'uvo. that the thint; ■ mted was new aiid useful, and that the i)atenteo Mas the inventor or discoverer thereof. Serrell v. (Ud- lina, MS. — IxGKRsoLL, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 27. A foreign patent is onW 2>rif)i/'/y//ri,i,, J.- N. Y., 1858. 31. A i)!itent h priiiif/ facie evidence that the grant of right in it isvali.r that the things described in it are new and useful; that they re(]uired iiiventidii, and that they were the invention of tliu patentee; and such jirinia fade cvi dence must have full eilect, unless re- butted bv suflicient counterv;iilin<' cvi- dence. J'atdr v. Holla ml, 3IS.— 1.\. (iicnsoij,, J.; Ct., 1858. 32. A patiMit \h 2>riina facie evidenci' that .An invention is new and usel'iil. Poppenheusen v. JV. Y. G. P. C'.mh. Co., 4 ]]latchf. — Ingersoli,, J. ; \. Y,, 1858. 33. The fact th.at a defendant has uso.l the thing [patented, the invention of tlie plaintiff, is very strong evidence as to the utility of the thing i)atented ; 'if it is not useful, why does he use it ? Ihid. 34. The degree of the utility of nii invention, is not a matter of considora- tion. If it was useful at the time the patent M'as granted, tlie p.atent isviili''; and if it has become useless since, bv the discovery of some other luetliod which disi)enses with it, this gives no other ])erson the right to use it. /i/'. 35. But if the invention is useless ii~ to the i^articular thing used by the de- fendants, then they are not liable. IbiJ. 86. The patent raises the presumjition EVIDKNCK, II. 6.— KXAMIXKllS OF PATKNT OFFICE. 311 INTKSriON, NMVKI.IIV ANll fTIMrY OK, OKKICAI. I'OSITIIIV AXI) DUTIES ')¥. of in»vt'Ity iiiiil iililily, \>n\ courts will not l»t' vi'i'y riitifl in iii(|nirini^ as to tin- (li'i/m^ of Hucli utility. //« // v. JJtion arisiuLT fioni tlio patent itself in favor of the novelty of the invention wliieh it cov- ers. Hut this presumi»tion may be over- come by showing? tlisit the thiiii^ had lit'i'ii i)riviously known. ColiiKtn v. Liixor, ."\1S. — liKAvrrr, .T. ; Ohio, ls,")9. oO. The <,feneral /. Jmlson V. C()2K\ 3IS. — Leavitt, .r.; Ohio, IMOO. 42. In other words, if the jury are sutisfu'd that the invention jiateiited produces a result ractical persons, and capable of judging as to the matter in issue, will be ret^eived, and are entitled to credit as to whether the invention is better or cheaper. Ar- t/iii>', J'Jx parte, IMS, (App. Cas.)— Moii- si:i,r., J.; I). C, isoi. 44. As to the novelty and utility of an invention, the testimony of disin- terested, competent witnesses experi- enced in the invention will be received, and, it seems, will overcome apparent resemblances to other inventions. Iloyt, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Moksell, J.; 1). C, 1800. 45. Upon the application for a p:it- ent, the testimony of practical men as to tlie utility of the invention is en- titled to consideration. Jlayden, Kx parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — ^Ieiujuk, ,T. ; D. C, 18G0. EXAMINERS OF PATENT OF FICE. 1. The officer of the Patent Office, who may attend before tlie judge on au '''■^^'^^SsS^S^^^^. M. H-^ ?li? "^/ / /wi smii^ .■M ;,,,.,aMi;^^ #• s;^*^w« IS ^WJ ■fV^f-' * 312 k\.\minl:i{s ok patknt orKici-:.— kxiicition". orndAL I'DMiioN and DtMiKH or. ^'•^W' '*^ Wk^' ^--,m %~'*-^ HAI.H OK I'ATKMM ANI» ('OPVllimi IM IMiltn. ap|>('a1. iiiidcr flio pi'iviHions of ^ 1 1 of till* act (>\' Is:;(>, is not coiisidcn'il as counsel for tin.' I'atc^nt OHicc, or as an ttdvoi-ato of cither of the [)arlieH liti- gant, lie only attends for the jmrposc of exji'.ainiiiLj tiie decision of llic (\»ni- missio'icr. I'trrijx. <'iii'/nU,yiS. (App. C'as.)— C'uAN.ii, "ch. J. ; I). C, 1HI7. 2. Tht) examiners in tlic Talent Of- fice arc only the assistantM of the Coni- niiss'.oner in tjie discharj^'e of his ilnties, and cannot Iil- constitntt'd a "l)oai'(l of examiners," with power to aHirn; or reverse the «lecision of tlie Commis- sioner. Tiio Coinmisioncr cannot trans- fer to them his power. .I/Zivv^, A'x jKirte { I ')•<(, given, till' Juilgc is boimd to respcc; as a [lart of the case. //'/(/. (I. Previous to tlio act of ^fanli 2tl lMt)l, nil judicial acts done in the I'at- cut Ollicc by the primary exaiiiincrs or the board of appeals were, in in. tendment of law, the jmlicial acts of the Commissioner, junl had no l('i,';il validity until sanctifxicd by him. 'flicv were the organs of the Connnissimur to inquire and cnlhi/den his judgment and till the Connnissioner gave validity to their judicial acts by his /A//, tluv had no h'gal evidence us judtruicat. Snowdcn v. Pierce, JMS. (.Ajip. Cas.)— DrNi.op, J.; I). C, 1861. 7. I'lider the act of 1801, the prini.i- ry examiners and examim-rs in (.|ii,,f are recognized n^ jiidifial cjfici rs, m-i- ing indejiendently of the Connnissioner, who can onli/ control t/ntn when tlicir judgment in due course, comes Itcfurc the Commissioner on a])peal. J//id. 8. Their acts are not tlie acts of tho Commissioner, but their own acts. Tluv are no longer tncre organs of the Com- missioner, but inde])endent olliccrs. He can only reach aiul overrule tlu'Mi wlun their judgments come reguhu-ly before liim on oj>2)eal. Ibid. n. The (.Commissioner can give no judgment till the ajipeal reaches liini, ami this caimot be done till the Judi,'- nicnt of the primary examiners lias been submitted to the examiners in chief. Ibid. EXECUTION, SALE OF PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS UNDER. 1. The levy and sale, under a:i exe- cution, of the matericds of a pateuteJ EXKCUTIOX.— KX IM:I{ I M KNTS. ni3 HAI.K or PATKNTH AM> Col'YIllflllTB INIiKH. UKI.ATIliX OK, TO INVKNTItiN. injicliiiic, (loi's iiKi coiivi'y to till' jiiir- cliii^'cr >iiiy I'itflit to iiHU tliu ninuliiiK! in till- tnaiiiK'i' |MiiiitoiI out in the ]MUi>nt Sncin v. (fuild, 1 (Jail., 4H7. SroitV, J.; Mm^s1H1:I. •J. An .'iiitlior, wln» lias obtaiiii'd a (•I:iss., 1847. '). The incorporeal right, copyright, si'ciireil hy the st.ntule to tlie author, boiiig iiitangildo and secured by grant, is not the subject of seizure or sale by t'xccution, at least at coniinon luw ; but it may be reached by a creditor's bill, md be ap|)lied to the p.iynient of the Ji'hts of the author. Sk'phens v duly, U How., uHI. — Xjjr.soN, J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 0. It limy however be doubted Avlieth- iv a transfer by a sale under a decree ol' court would i)ass the title so us to pioU'ct the purchaser, unless by a con- VL'vaiice, in conformity with the require- ments of the statute. Ibid., 502. 7. The sale of a copi)er-plate of a map, ou ail execution against tiie owner of tlio coi)yright, does not carry with it, /»/., r);i'j. ' 8. It may well be doubted whether patents and copyrights, held under the laws of the I'nited Stales, an- snbjeia to seizure and sale on execution; such incorporeal rights do not exist in any particiil:ir state or district, but are co- extensive with the I'liited States. Stc- vviin\. (ihiddintj, 17 How., 4") I. — CfU US, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. EXrEUIiMKNTS. 1. It is clearly immaterial whether experinu'iits as to an invention are made by the inventor himself or by others; the question being, who is the original inventor. Pcitnork v. Dhdnipic, 4 Wash., 542. — WASiiiNurox, J.; Ta., 1 825. 2. -;\. patentee may tako a reasonable time to try experiments with his inven- tion, even of a public nature, when its character recpiires it, without invalidat- ing his ]»atent under § of the act of 17!t:5. W/iltnci/ V. Emmdt, IJaUl., 310. — !>AM)Wix, J.; Ta., 1831. 3. Whoever lirst perfects a machine and makes it capable of useful opera- tion, is entitled to a j)atent, and is the real inventor, though others may have previously had the idea, and made some experiments toward putting it in prac- tice. Washhur)i\. Gould, 3 Story, 133. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1844. 4. Semhle, that he would be entitled to a patent, although the antecedent experiments of others were known to and used by him in perfecting his ma- chine. Ibid., 133. 5. Though others may have had the 31" '^la^W' TT cr ' '•/■-T' ■ ' ■;'■ r ,»rir of an inventor, ami his inven- tion to heconie the Kuhjecl of a patent, ho must not stop at tnisuccosHfiil experi- ments, hut continue until he liaslm Jiu'hl out a niachliie producing,' a useful result, !Uid without this his iiiveiilion will lie ■worthless to the coimiiiniity, and umle- Hcrvinj^ the protection of tho law. Jfr- Coi'inlck v. Sii/tno'it', ^IS. — Nki..so.v, J. ; N. v., 18.-) I. 8. A patentee or an inventor has a right to try his machine, and continue his exjK'riinents until he has perfected liis improvement. Jltid. 9. It is when speculation has been re- duced to jiractice, when oxperiineiit has resulted in discovery, and when that discovery has been perfected by patient and continued experiment, when some new compound, art, manufacture, or machine, has been thus produced which is useful to the public, that the party making it becomes a public benefactor, and entitled to a patent. Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wall, Jr., 29U.— Guikk, J.; N. J., 1852. 10. An imperfect and incomplete in- vention, resting in mere theory, or an intellectual notion, or in uncertain ex- periment, aud uot actually reduced to pnictice, and embodied in Home diKtiiut machinery, apparatus or the like, i, |,,,t patent abltt under our laws. M. his right will bo preserved and protect. ed, although his buccess may not be perfect. Ihid. i;i. A machine, in order to anliciiuic any subseipient discovery, must he per- fected, that is, nnide so as to be of practical utility, and not to be nu'ivly experimental, and end in expeiiiiieiit. L'litil of practical utility, the piililic at- teiition is not called to the invention; it does not give to the public that which the public lays hold of as beiielicial. tlince V. Undtrwood, IMS. — Si'ijAiiii:, .J.; 3Iass., 1854. 14. If an invention is an exporiinont only, and ends in experiment, and is laid aside as unsuccessful, however Un- it may have been adv.'inced, however many ideas nuiy have been coinbineil in it, Avhicli, subsecpiently taken \\\\ might, when perfected, make a gooj machine, still not being perfected, it has not come before the public as a useful thing, and is therefore entirely inopera- tive as afFecting the rights of those coming afterward. Ibid. 15. Where a person is engaged in produchig some new and useful instru KXI'KUIMKNTS. 815 RKI.ATIoN ii», til INM MION. mont or coiitrtvnm'o, aint Iium ciiilioilit'tl ' It iiitoa iiiat'liinr, tuul I'luleavorcil to ru- 1 ilmt' it to priu'tlci' by oxix'i-iiiu'iit — if l!iii-i' irijils fail — if he fail in nucrcsH mid | •ili:iiiil"i> ill ii'xl K'^*' it "I'l t'l"^ cDiiMid- i>r:iiinii alfui'iis mi iin|iciliiiu'iit to aiio- tlu'i' pc'i'Mon who lia.H titk(>ii up tliu Haiiic idoa, or clasH of iilciis, nini wlio liuHj^niu- nil |icrst'VoriiiL;Iy in liin sfinliis, trials, mill (Xiiurimonts, until In* lias pfilVTU'il tlic iirw itii'ii, and hi-<)ii;r|it it into prac- tical and UHcfnl operation, lie is tlu> iii'i'Min, tlic nit'i'itorions inventor, wlio is ctililU'd to liio |i|-(it«'ction of tlio law. Vi„"iiti V. K y. tts Jliir. liJl, :il Jour. Y\: Inst., :td Sor., .'I'J'J. — Nki.hon, J. ; N. Y., 1H.'»3. 10. If a person liavinuj homio vaLjnc idea i)f a principU', nia'i«' niinicious triMls and experiments, if tlutse trials mill I'vperinients do not reHiilt in fiieli a kiiowle l;,'o upon Ills part as enahles liini 1(1 jiiil in siu'cessi'ul practice the idea of wliicli lie has such va<;ne notion, he does not beconu' an inventor iu the 80I1M' of tlio jiiiteiit law. lli(iiHt»)i V. M'ii/'>i; :tti York^ .MS. — Hall, J.;*N. v., 1H50. 17. Such a person has never onibod- icd tlic principle ho as to make it aviiila- Mc for practical use ; and the party who (.'iiiliodies the priiicijdo and makes it !iv!iilal)l(! for practical use, is the party who is entitled to a patent, and to \)Vo- taction. Ihid. 18. An unsuccessful experiment almn- doiied, althoiij^h iiivolviiii; the same idea or principle, will not invalidate a patent granted to a subse(pient inventor who has reibiced the invention to successful practice, and published it by obtaining letters patent. Ibid. 19. The use of a patented invention as a matter of business, and the product of which is thrown into market for the purpose of being Hold, raiUlot b«> called I'xperiment.al, but is huoIi a use an will make tint party liable. Vi>/>^n:nhtii»en V. .V. >'. li. A ('«mh ('„., I llliitchf.— iNoKiiaoi.L, J. ; \. v., Ih.'i'-t. '20. Kxperiinents made, (Mpiivocal in their results, antl jxiven up for year»», will not be permitted to prevail a;^fainst an orit^'inal inventor who has r(>duced his invention to practice, and has with- out fraiul obtained a patent. I'Ullthtn'pt', \. Jii>/)t:rtiion,y\H. — I.nukusoi.i,, J.; N. v., 1851). 'J I. An experiment as to the pioilue- tion of a maihine, whi(h was unsatis* factory and had l>een aliandoned, is not HU(di an invention as entitles a person to the bciietit of tlic patent laws. Whi- tni.'f V. I>iniJ\irtli, iMS. — Ni;i,s»»n, J,; \. v., IHOO. '-'2. Where a person has attempted to invent a certain drvice, and aflcr tri;d and experiment has in his own jud<{ ment failed and abandoned the experi- ment, this fact removes all impediments in the way of any future inventor who tnay follow in the same line. [h'nl. iJ.'i. Kxperime>'ts of another, even if kiu)wn to a jtatontee, Avill not defeat the claims of such patentee to originality of invention, if it appear that su(di pat- entee has prosecuted such experinientH to success. Jiidson v. JIuoi'e, MS. — LKAVriT, J.; Ohio, 1800. 24. Neither the patent law nor the decisions of our courts liavo tixi'd any precise jieriod applicable to the experi- mental use of new inventions. The period for experiments nuist depend upon the nature of the invention, and the opportunities of the inventors. See- ley V. Bean., MS. (App. Cas.) — Mou- sKix, J. ; D. C, 1801. 25. What would not constitute prop- er diligence under some circumstances, , , ■ ». :'>^'\ ■ ( '■■,»vf'J 310 KXPKin'S. TMriMUilV or, WilKM AMIIMIItt.M, Akl» ritHi'N or. 4 l^iwl wIh'H tlif cxpfriiiifiit* wi'iit ovtT n f»'W iiiontliM, wiMilil hot iiiMoiiiit to ikliuixloii- liii'iit iiinli'i' (itlu'rcin-iiiii^tiiMfcs tliiiii^K the i>x|K>i'itii('iil'4 iiii>;lit li;ivc ^uiiu Dwr ii imiiilx'r of j't'afM. /A/*/. '.Ml. 'I'lif iiatiiru mill oxtrtit of tliin ri^lit )li'|>i'ii||. tilled lo great rc»pect. Ibil nib r nil the jury mii«» j'l'lf^e for thein«el\i'., ,|, well Upon the information no ^ivfii tn then), at upon their ow.i view, uhttu the articles, or models of ihcni, ui-() brou;(ht into court. lHjfon \, M,„f,f 4 Wash., 71. — W.VhlUNtilo.N, ,1.; pj,_ IH'21. 4. Ft Is compi'tent to show by expi rts that llieie .are material ditU rciiccs |„.. twceii an ori);inal and a reisHUid patent Mild to explain what thoNu ditrerciiiiH are. Phili. cC Tim. Ii. Ii. v. SH,„jm„„ It Pet., 40;.'.— S'r«»uv, J.; Sup. ft., IH4(). .'). Whelhor a patent is \oid f.-r im. certainty or ambij,'uity in the dcscri|p. tion, is u matter of fact to be decidcl upon the evidence of experts. II'im/c fiiint v. (Joiild, 1) »Sl»u'y, liia. — .Smuv, J.; .M.iss., 1H44. (i. The opinions of professioii.al men, art' CYifleiice as to matters which icliilo to their profession, and on such siilijccts only. And this riil>' applies to iiiccliaiiics as well as to any other profession or business. Jtroohx \. /lii-/:/i,ll, ;i Me- Lean, 447. — >r< I.ica.v, J. ; Ohio, iHti. 7. The patent acts look to two clasM's of persons, not only .is competent, hut as peculiarly appropriate witnesses, but for tlilfereiit purposes. 1. Artis;iiis, of persons jiraetically eii<^a<^ed in the tiuili', eniploymenl, or business of the paiticii- I.ir branch of mechanics to wliicli tlic pateiit-riifht applies, as to whether tlio specilication siifllcieiitly described tlic invention so that it could be coiistnict- ed anil used. And '2. Persons who, al- thout^h not practical artisans, are tlior- oufijhly conversant with the subject of ' inochanics as .1 science, as to the (pu's- tioiis of novelty of invention, or idciiti- 1 ty or diversity of mechanical apparatus, r.XPKKTS. 817 TRirriNnNT or. wiirn admimiiilk, amd rtmcR or. jitvl f.tntrlvnnri'*, ntnl cciiilvnlcnttt— onil ;i.» til till""' i|iu"«tii»it«, M'U'iiiitlf iiit'chnn- i,s iin- fli*' v»'ry li'iKlu'tt wilni'WM'*, .1/- /,„ \. lihuil, :i Slniy, 7I7-741).— Ht»». K^.J.; MiiM^., I Hi:,. N, TIk' |iiit('iil lU't ('i>iiti'ni|>lMl('s two c\\\^*\"^ of |ii>i'r*iiiiH IIS pt'ciilhirly a|)|irti|iri- all' wiliu'HM'!* ill |ialfiit fa'«t'H. Int. I'rai'- tii'ul tiii'i'liaiiit'M, to ili'tiriiiiiii the hiiIH- (•'uiii'V of lilt' H|»»'<'ilitatioti \\s to ilif inoilc of collet riH'liii^r, «'oin|i'iiinilni;.', ami ii'*'">K •'"' I'"'*'"' ■> »'"' '-''• f^<'*><'i>- title u'lil tliroivlic liu'rliaiii«s to «U'lrr- miiif " iii'llit r tlic pati'iitttl tliiiitr i^ '*"'»- ^I;llltially lu'w ill its xiriicliin' ami iiiodc of (i|u'iiilioti, or a iiicrc rliaiiiff of »'(|iiiv- aliiils. Till' Hoi'oiul Ik l>y far tlio liii^lu'r ami iiM'ii "nii|iortMiil of |ln« two. f)li;,ff V. //>nr/cliiH, J AiiuT. Law Jour., N. S., :»JI.— >Iii.i'i;i{. •'• ; Wi><., IHHI. It, (iii'al r»H|)»'ct is due to iho vli'Ws ami (i|iinioMs of scioiitilit; iiidividiiiils, and |ii;n'lical mccli.'inics, nii tlu' ijinstioii of till! i to mtppnnc that, I'Vi'ii on a ipieotion of Meieiici', ophiioii ctui be di<..;iiilled with the inatilli' of authority. Still 1«'»h, when it a^tsumes I'onteHtrd fart-*, or xohinleers to aiil in deterininiiiiX written in-itrument"-. llil,f, l:i. Kxperls may bu I'xainiiietl aH to the ineaniii^of tiTiiiH of art, cte., on tho priiH'iple of «•///«///#! in mm iirfi rrnfiti- i/iiiit, liitt not a« to the conv^tnietion of writti'ii iiistruineiit"*. (^itrnlmj v. ////*•■ fA/», 1.^ How., '.'70. — (Jitii:u, .1.; Sup. I't., IHVI. I 1. Models may be referred to nsoni- lar denmnstratioii of featurt-s <'niineeted therewith, aiiil Hiieh demonstration, or evidence, will be more satisfactory than the opinion of «'xperts in opposiiioM llurelo. //.// V. //;//, MS. (App. ("as.) — MousKi.i., J.; I). I'., lH.'i4. MS. Ill |)!ilent caHes, the mere opinions of experts, when not sustained by point- ini; out eleaily the p.'irticiilars of ditfei- eiice or eoineideliee between pieces of m:ichinery constructed to produce the same results, and workinj^ out those re- sults by means so nearly ideiilic.il as to create a stronjj; pre-.uiiiption of a com- mon oriLfin, will not atlbrd very .s.itisfic- tory jtroof that such opinitms ought to bo adopted by the Court. U. S. An- ininchttiir «0 Itdl Td. (Jo. v. Soiidirnoii, •.\ JJIati'hf., 181J.— llirrrs, J.; N. Y., In.". I. 10. In matters of seienco, a jierson cannot bo considered as an expert un- less he has a knowledge of the scienco involved. AUrn v. J/itnfir, (i Mi I^'an, 307, aOH, 310.— :M(jLkan,J. ;()hio, 1h:)5. 17. Ill considering testimony, the jury are to give weight to it in proportion to the competency of the witnesses to judge of the mattera sworn to. Jbid.y 310. 18. The testimony of a chemist, who has analyzed the higredients of a com- U iy ,| .*^-!if'4; Ui/U»4^uM i : \:^[ 11^*^ m. •IS KXPKUTH. nmiuvnx ur, *iit.h AHuitMuix, tuuut ur. mi *?^ 'i |H)Pitliul| i>( Itllltti'rs Rll'l ulio li'Nfillixt UN to till' rcHiilt lit' Minli iiiiitly/ittioii, in imt liiiUU'i' of ii|iiiiiiiii, liitt ut' tt lUct (lumiiii" utmti'.I. //rll .'lliinltllc ••(■Itaillly, TIlfH' uri' Will (>vv i|iu'HtiitiH wliirli may Im> tlfciiU>i| liy iIm' jiowtT uf uiialyHi-, iln'iuii'ally <>r liiatliciiialicully. iliit wlifii lliin i<« i|imii> NUtHl'at'tiirily, Initli U uttiiiii(><|, /A/i/,, 'JO. MotlrlN uro Rviiioiicii Hiipcrior lo nii'l iiimU'ci'IimI by tin; iiitcrt'iHtH or |trf- Jinliit"* 1)1' itiirtiwilMH, or l>y the <>|iiiiiiiiii (ilui rt'Vi-rii'H, tlioy may olUn lu- culU'il) of a «'la,'7. 'J I. 'I'lii' Htatutr lity as to wiielher !i »p( liliin. tion <-onlains u sntlicient descripiinti ut' the invention, niu«t \>i' '>\)i- n/u'lluf in (fit iD't: one not so NkiJIed is iioi a lit pir. son to (lelermine as to |!ie Milliiiiiuy of the description. Pitjifhii/nnn,,, \, X. v. O. p. Comb Co., •» J{latd.r.-1.H! UKHHOI.l., J. ; N. ^'., |M.")H. .'tt, Xeither the tesiinnMiy of witiuss. es generally, nor of professors, evpcrh, or meehanies, e.an he received In pnivc what is the proper or It gal con>trni'iiim of a patent. Ij>/i/ v. Stdltnun, .M.S.— (Jii.Ks, J. ; ,Md., |H.-)!I. J7. To delermim! (piestiont! of tlu' mechanic.il ditference of nuieliiiioi, tin' law permitH the opinions «)f men callnl experts to be given in evidence, and when such men are ipialitied and I'ltc from I»ias, their ti'siimony is eniitlcdto great respect. Moiris v. Jtmretf, .MS. — I.i:Avirr, J.; Ohio, iH'iH. Lattn v. Sliilirk, MS. — I.KAVIIT, J. ; Ohio, is,')0. JH. In general, witnesses tcNtiiy only as to tacts, from which the jury f(irm their opinion. Jbit there :ue v.iiiims classes of eas-es which depend upon the knowledge of a peculiar art or scitiiio for their solution, reipiiring a peculiar knowledttloit lnvi>lvi>«l t ! ill mli'll l'il"«'nlil||it|l) to ht'tfiM'll i'l'tilii tliimo Nkill'iil ill I III) |>iir- liiiiliir i»rl, m-ii'iu-f, itr |iriil«'«iii<»ii, iiinl ixiiiiitt tliciii to ii'iw lliiir ii|titiii)iiM an iisiiIh wliii'li (li>'>' lU'i'ivr III lioiii nil i'« aiiiiiittlloii of tliM l|lll>^•ti<)||M of flirt that ;iii' iM't'ori! tlu' jury. Jnlnmim v. /»«*<(/, \h. Si KAiiiK, J.; Mii«H., tH.-^H. :',t. Till' jury nIihiiIiI not, liitwovt-r, iillow tlii'Uif*t'lv«'H to l»o IioiiikI by mu'li iiiiinioii!*. Tlu'y \\y> only iiilro.liii'i'd ti» iiiii. TIh' (>|iinioii <»f mi fxpi rl \n to In* ('(iiiMiiiTi'tl likt> thiit of aii\ iiriifi'SHioiiiil iiiiiti ; ivIt'i't'iK'** i>('itiL( li.'iil to IiIh iiliility, tlic t'liriiosH of the o|iinitiii, its iiii|iiir- liiility, iiiiit tlio rttasdiiH iiH.sigiifil for it. ;iit. Tlu" tt'stinmny of oxportM \* to Ik' nri'lvi'il iiu|ilirilly, only on points of ii rt';illy f<('i»'iitit'«' kiii'l; mi"! tlicpcrHons nf- fiTi'tl 11^ I'XpiTts niu>-t lio it'iiiiy mm u\' ^(■il'Il(•t', Kvi'ii in iiiattiTs w liirli arr of a Kcii'iitillc nature, the court ativ(itl ri'pro> xt'iitiitivi'ri of n pati'iitco upon tlirir a|>- plii'alioii, in tli«> ^anii< inauiicr a-* tlioiiuli tli(> applii'atioii liail liottii nititlo in tlit< iifutiiiu' of till' pati'iitvv. Nynmni Clint; :\ Opin., -110. — (tiii'NOY, Alty. (•I'll., |n;i!I. '.*. An a Ij;an, J.; Ohio, iHtM. t. The administrator of a deceusoil patentee may apply for and'ol)tain a ro- lu'wal of his patent, /h'lxtki v. Jiok- ni'lU •'! .McLi'.'iii, 4:10, 4:js. — McI^KA.N ; J.; Ohio, IHU. .'». \\\ extension of a patent- may he taken out l»y an administrator of a de- i-eased patentee. Wnnhhiini v. (lonlif, :\ Story, 13;J, l.'JT. — Stokv, J.; ^Mas.s., 18 It. 0. An administrator is competent to aj'ply for and receive a reiu'wai or ex- tension of a patent. Wuinlworth v. S/ierman, 3 Story, 172. — Srouv, J.; Mass., 1814. 7. The provisions of § 18 of the net of 1830 as to extcn»ious is not limited **' '•■•'*^Ma5 //-/ »•»- '# '— ^.^ ^i^ ♦ • ■i Tffllf'll 'Mwv:i;:< i>04Km>. i'20 kxti:nsi(>\ ok tatknt, n. OWKH l)K COMMISSIIiMMl OS; XATIHK OK ACTION OF. »,.,, "*»^J-^il: ^':^l«»r' f^; to (•;if*('s of ii'Ui'wala of fiUutc patents, Iml a|»|»Iits lo ilic jiast also. /A/(/., 170, 1 t^O. S. Tlio riulit of rt'iiinval is limiti'd lo lilt' pali'iiU ', wlii'llu'r 111' ri'taiiis tir has soltl liis iiivciitioii. Till' provisidii of roiii'wal I'xtciids as well to a raso wluTi' llio iiatoiil lias In'i'ii assii^iu'tl, as wliiTi' it lias not Ik-cii. lirtxths v. Jiifkiidl, 4 MrLcaii, 00, 0!'. — .McLkan, ,I. ; Oliio, 1^4"). 0. The rii^ht of extoiisioii imdor § 18 of the art of 18;10, ajiplk'd to |)att'ii(s jjraiiti'd lii'fori' the jtassajje of that act, as well as to those thereaOer issued. Wilson V. Tiir/ur, 7 Law Kep., r>-2\K — Tanky, J. ; ISUl, 181-). 10. The rij^ht of extension is given by the law, ehietly wiili a view to the advaiitaije of the iiiveiilor, and not of his as>iL:iiee or grantee ; ;iiid the j)atenl, if extended at all, must he extendetl on the ;i|iiilieatioii of the inventor and not of liis .assiifiiee. IO/(f., iy'M. 11. jj is of the aet of 18150 authorizes the extension of a patent on the api>li- cation of the e.xeeutor or administrator of :i deceased jiatentee. Wi/noii v. lios- seau, 4 llov,., 07r>, 070, 087.- -Xki.son, J.; Sup. Ct,, 1845. 12. ^Vnd such extension may be ap- ])lied ibr and obtained by the iidminis- trat(»r, although the original jiatentee had in his lifetime disposed of all his interest in the then existing patent, hav- ing at the time of his death no right or title to, or interest ir. the original pat- ent. Ibid., 080, 088. 090. 13. An administrator may, under ^ 18 of the act of 1830, apply for, and take an extension of a patent. Wood- worth V. 117/50/*, 4 How., 710. — Nkl- 50X, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1845. 14. The renewal of a patent in the name of an adminiotrator is good, as an invi'iition is personal |irnpcrty. Wood. wordi V. Jltill, 1 Wood, tt Mill. L'.vt.— WoouiiLiJV, .1. ; iMass., 1840. R. ToWKU OK COMMISSIONKl! n\ .\l'- I'l.n ATION KOU; CoNlLlSlVi; Xatiki; OF AtTION OK. 1. Under JJ 18 of the act of l8:m,tlio notice of an apjilicatioii Ibr an exltnsinn of a i)alen( is intended to jnoifct the public, and give all an opportiinitv t,, appear and oppose. Where a iiiiimt was to expire oi\ ♦lie 7th day of Uo- ceiiiber, 18 10, and the applicant didiht apply until the I'lst of Novenilicr, //,///, that there was not time suHiciciit to ^ivc the notice retpiired by law. iinU's Cose, y Opin.,5l)4. — (Jili'IN, Atty. (Iin ; J 840. 2. The dei^ision of tlic iJo.ird, U]i.i;i .an aiiplication for an extension ol' a patent, is conclusive within the scopo of its Jurisdiction, there being no Mipo rior supervising tribunal; but it is nd conclusive on the question of law, ;is lo the right of renewal by the party .ip. plying. Jiroola v. Iiic/,'iu//, M ^IcLoiui, 258.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 184;?. ;J. The proceeding betbre the Uoanl, as to the extension of a patent, is not nect^ssarily ex jno'fc , those who con- test the right of the applicant have iIk' right to appear and oppose the rcnowal of the patent. Ji rooks v. Birkjnll, ■'< McLean, 435.— Mi'Lkax, .1 . ; ( )liio, 1 844. 4. The function of such Board is, in its nature, judicial : the parties, as well those who oppose the extension of the ji.itent as those who apply for it, arc brought before ihem ; and evidciicL' on both sides being heard, the board jno- nounce judgment. Hid., 435. 5. The proceeding, therefore, is not like a tax sale, where every step mus nl, uiin;i on til' a lu' si'djii^ 11(1 >iiiio it is nut !i\v, ;is to );ll-ty liji- u' r.oanl, |iit, is not ,vlu> coil- h;ivo Uie rom'\v:il K'knilh •' liio, 1S14. urd is. ill as well oil of llw or it, nil! idonco mi oard I'vo- ire, is iw^ Lep mus KXTKXSION fW PATENT, C. n2i KIOIITS or AHHKINKKH AND OIllKllfl IN. bo piovctl, or tlio titlo (ails. Uiit if is in tlif iiatiirc ot'a Jiitlii-ial iictiun wIhtc, jiirisdit'tion l)t'iiig aciiiiircd, lu) Huhsi'- iiiu'iit 01 Tors can iitVcct llu' liilo of a imrcliaser. //>»(/., 411.'). 0. Till' dorision of the Hoard, upon an ajiplii'iition for an exti'iision of a jiateiit, is not cotu'lusivo uimii tlu' (jiius- )i„ii of their jurisdiftion. Witsuii v. liosscdu, 4 How., 08H. — Nklson, J.; Su].. Ct., 1845. 7. Tho extension of !i patent to a iierson as administrator is jiroof that tlio lioanl M'.is satisfied of the faet of his hcing sueli administrator, and hiicIi di'cisioii is conclusive. In an action upon such p.'itent, tho letters of ndinin- istvation need not bo produced. Wood- worth V. HitU, 1 Wood. & Min., 254.— WooDiiVBY, J.; IMass., 184G. 8. Tho act of 1848, conferring the power of ex'jndinjj; patents upon tho Commissioner, was not a repeal of § 10 of tho act of 1 8.^0, providing for the extension of patents, but simply a re- peal of so nuich of it as related to the action of the Secretary of Stati', and the Solicitor of tho Treasury in the matter. It simply devolved upon the Commissioner tho whole of the duty which was previously divided witli the Secretary and the Solicitor, and direct- ed that he should be governed by the same principles and rules that had gov- erned the board compoped of the three. Colt v. Yount/, 2 Blatchf, 473.— Nel- son, J.; N. Y., 1852. 9. Where an application for an ex- tension of a patent, under § 18 of the act of 1836, was pending at the time of the passage of the act of 1848, Mhich conferred upon the Commissioner of Patents solely the power previously vested in the board created by the act of 1836, Udd^ that it was not necoas.i- ryto renew the application, but that the 21 Coniinissioncr had tho power to go on with the proceedings, as having bei'ii already properly insiituted, and com- plete them by granting tho extension. IhuL, 473. 10. The decision of the Commissioner as to tho regularity of the })roi'et:iiings l»efore him, on an application for an ex- tension !ire conclusive, except perhaps in a case of fraud. Jhiil.^ 473, 174. 11. In respect to the entire iiieiits of the j)alentee, luid the existence of tho legal grounds for an extension, the law makes the (.'ommissioiier tlu' judge, and in the absence of fraud his iidjudieatiou is conclusive. CUim v. Jh'cirrr, 2 Curt., 518.— Curtis, J. ; Mass., 1855. C, RiaiiTS OP AssioxKKs and otukus IX Extension. 1. Under the act of 1830, by which "the benefit of a renew.al extends to tlm assignee to the extent of his interest," Avhero an assignment of the whole right has been made by a patentee, whether such patentee coidd liave any interest in the renow.il ; tjncri/. Jiroolcs v. Jiichiell, 3 McLean, 257. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1843. 2. Utuler the patent laws, prior to 183(5, a license or assignment of a pat- ent expired with tlK limitation of tho original patent, unless it was expressly so granted aa to be ap{)licabk; to any renewal of the patent afterward. The licensee's or assignee's right was bound- ed by the same limits as that of tho licenser or assignor, that is, the original term granted. — Washburn v. (lould, 3 Story, 135.— Story, J.; Mass., 1844,. 3. A renewed patent under those laws was a new grant, and the patentee was entitled to the solo and exclusive benefit thereof, unless the licensees or '-'"-^w^ WM.W, I kxii' m' Wir'W'^ VV.w^ '*'l'*I^^^'-^"%i tm. ■-w42^ *;'!t:y*L<\ ^53 IP •■ ■ .' w , 'm* I', I* '^S^^. 822 KXTKXSIOX OF PATKNT, C ^^•i>W Rioiira or Aw^ia.vEEs anu otueiw ik. ,^--1 '^"■W I assignees had, by tlieir original coii- trnct, secured (o themselves, hy express covenant or grant, a riglit to (lie henelit of tlie renewed patent. Ihid., l;{"). 4. Previous to the act of ISMO every license and assignment expired \\ ith the limitation of the original patent, unK'ss it was expressly, in terms, so granted as to be applicable to any renewal of the patent afterward. The doctrine proceed- ed upon the grouml (hat a man can pass by grant or assignment oidy that which lie jtossesaes, and which is in existence at the time. His grant, therefore, is limited to what is then in existence, un- less he uses other language, inij)orting an intention to grant what is not then possessed or in existence. Woodworth V. Sherman, 3 Story, 174. — Sronv, J.; Mass., 1844. 5. And this doctrine is expressly ap- ])licable to licenses and assignments un- der the act of 18;}6, the whole design of which is confined to the inventor, and for his benefit, and not for the ben- efit of his licensee or assignee. lOul., 175. G. The word "patentee" in § 18 of the act of 1830 is used as efjuivalent to "inventor," and the law meant to re- ward him, and him alone, for his time, ingenuity, and expense in i)erfecting his invention. Ihid.^ 170. 7. The clause as to assignees " to the extent of their res2)ective interests there- in," does not mean to enlarge the rights of assignees beyond the extent of the interest originally granted to them. If such interest was limited to the original term, they would have no benefit in the extended patent; but if the orighial as- signment conferred, expressly, or by just implication, an interest in the re- newed patent, that interest was to be protected. Ibid.., 177. 8. Under g 18 of the act of iPio (he renewal of a paten'i, does not inure to an assignee, iniless by the assiginiicnt, of the original patent it is so spccitit.,!, Brooks V. Jiic/cnell, 4 jNIcLean, 00, 07. — Ml Lka.v, J. ; Ohio, 1845. 9. The proviHit)n that the " benefit of the renewal shall extend to the assiifiK.,.).; of the j)atent to the extent of their in. terests thercnn," gives a legal etlect to the provisi('i; of any assigimient, stijni. lating for an interest in the evciit of a renewal. Without such provision, tint assigiunent might have been considcrc 1 an Jigreement to convey, but it \V(.ii!,l not have been a legal conveyance c!' the patentee's right, as he could im,i convey a legal title 'S> that which ■was not in existencf / .\i.., 68, 10. This is a fair construcfion of the statute, harmonizing its provision;, and giving effect to the intention of the par- ties. Ifiid., 08. 11. The object of the clause in g 18 of the .act of 1830, as to assignees, is to j)reserve any previous contract of as- sigimient, in the sense in M'hich both parties understood and intended at the time it Avas made, and to secure to tlie I>iirchaser the right he had intended to buy, and which the p.atenteo intei dcd to sell. MllfioH V. Ti(rnci; 7 - iloji., 530.— Taxky, J.; Md., 184 12. The legislature obvioii ;> ,n' d- ed to guard a party who had puicia, imI from the patentee the right to use (ho invention until the expiration of tlio ex- clusive privilege, from the necessity of buying it again. Ibid., 531. 13. The object of the law is to do justice between the inventor, avIio has failed to obtain a reasonable reniuiicru- tion within the fourteen years, for the time, ingenv.ity, and expense bestowed upon his invention, and the public, in § 18 iiet's, is to let of as- incii botli IchI at the Ire to tlie ended to Itoi'dedto :i .< I^rot('cts assifjnecs and prantoos in the rij;lits ])rovioii«ly ac(juii'tid by them. lOid., 632. 14. The extension of a patent iindcr < 18 of tlio act of 1836, does not inure to the benefit of assignees or grantees imUf the original patent, so as to vest ill tlieui any exelusivo right. I5ut the lii'netits of such renewal extended to assiujnees or grantees by siieh seetion is limited to those who were in the use of the patented article at the time of the renewal, and saves to sueh persons the lii'ht to use the niaehiiies lield by them at the time of such renewal "to the ex- tent of their interests," be that interest ill one or more machines. Wilson v, Russeaii, 4 How., 082, 083. — Xklsox, J.; Sup. Ct, 1845. [But see ji>o«< 43 to 47, 1850.] 15. McLkan and ^yoonl^uuY dissent- ed, holding that sucli an extension would hiuie to the benefit of such assignees, who had by express agreement secured an interest in the extension. Ibid., 092, C94. 16. Wayne dissented from such part of the opinion of the court as gave to assignees the right to continue the use of the patented machines in use at the thne of the extension. Ibid., 693. 17. A covenant as to a benefit in a "renewal" of a patent must be constru- ed by a reference to the law as it stood at the time of such covenant, .and will not embrace, any right in a now grant, secured by after legislation. Ibid., 085. 18. Where, in an assigmnent of a pat- ent, made in 1828, before there was any ]irovision in the patent laws authorizing a renewal, there was a covenant that any '"renewal" should inure to the benefit of the assignees. Held, that such term " renewal," could be satisfied by a ref- erence to the law as it then stood, and that in a subsecpient renewal of the jiat- ent, by virtue of subset|uent acts of Con- gress, no right was ae(|uired by virtue of the assignnuint or covenant. Ibid,, 085, 080. lit. If an extetision is taken Vty an ad- ministrator of a deceased patentee, it inures to the benefit of such administra- tor, and to him in that capacity exclu- sively. Ibid., 085, 087. 20. The assigm^es and grantees of the right to use a patent, who are by ^19 of the act of 1830, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to have the bencllt of the renewal of a patent, are those lidd- ing the right, at the time of the renewal. Woodinorth V. Curtis, 2 Wood, & Min., 530. — WooDUURY, J.; Mass., 1847. 21. A reservation in an act of Con- gress extending a patent in favor of as- signees, does not make the act uncon- stitutional, but such power of reserva- tion is incidental to the general power coiderred to promote the progress of the useful arts, lilanch. Gun-Stock Co. V. Warner, 1 IJlatchf., 200, 271, 275.— Nki.sox, J.; Ct., 1840. 22. The direct question whether Con- gress can grant in an extension, rights to assignees, was not involved in tho cases of Wilson v. liosseau., Sinipsofi V. Wilson, Wilson v. Dtrner, and Wuodworth V. Wilson, 4 IIow., 040- 712, but was discussed and considered as connected with the n otters in con- troversy in those cases, and tho ilgiit of Congress to reserve rights and pri\ i- leges to assignees, was conceded as in- cidental to the general power conferred by the constitution on Congress, to pro- mote the progress of the useful arts. Ibid., 276. 23. A general assignment of an inter- est in a patent, or a part of a patent, gives the assignee no interest iu the re- '*^^^, ^::. 1» i '?1,„. kf '■'^'■■l^mL^i wi^bi 324 EXTENSION OK J'ATENT, C. ^w^ V«-«»'^_ t:. 'It.- f'^ '^' v;:^^ 'f^'v'...;^^ *ii^ ^Sii HtailTS or ABHUIN'EEa AND OTltCnS IK. ncwal of tlio p.'Uent, liut Hiich iiii iii- tcn'ht may be nssij^ned, if tlio Iltius of the !issi;jjiiiiu'iit <'li';irly ciiilirari' tlic rcncwi'd j>atciit. J'/uIjih v. Cot/istocA; 4 McLean, 365. — McLkan, J. ; Iiul., 1818. L'4. Hut wliere the asyijinincnt Is of ail interest in letters patent, which "are or may be granted," it embraces nny subsecjuent renewal of the i>atent wheth- er it should be under the statute, or by act of Congress. IbiJ., ;J55. 25. If the M'hole ui the patent has been assigned, it would seem that, under tho decision of the majority of the Su- ])reme Court in Wilsoik v. llossexu^ 4 How., 040, 1845, there could be no re- newal for tho benefit of the patentee. Ibid., 355. 20. The extension of a i)atent is for the benefit of the original inventor or his rei»resentatives, to compensate him lor his expenditure, labor, and ingenu- ity in the invention, and in perfecting it. Case V. lieJjield, 4 McLean, 528. — IIux- TiNcirox, J. ; Ind., 1849. 27. An ordinary assignment of a right in a patent will not convey any right in the extended or renewed patent. But such an interest when intended to be assigned, must be expressed. Ibid., 628. 28. Under § 18 of the act of 1836, as construed by the Supreme Court in Wilson V. liosseau, 4 How., C82, a licensee may continue to use an inven- tion actually in use by him at the time of an extension, during the term of such extension ; but no such right ex- ists under an extension by act of Con- gress, unless specially provided for. Jiloomer v. Stolley., 5 McLean, 163. — McLea?^, J. ; Ohio, 1850. [But see post 33.] 29. If Congress upon an extension imposes no restriction in favor of a |i. ccnsee, and there is no provision in the contract of license, beyond the tcim of the patent, none can be inipliid. Jl,uj^ 104. 30. Th(! right of an as^iignee to coii. tiinie to use, during an extension of ,1 patent, niachines existing and in usi' at the expiration of the first term, us du- dared in Wilson v. Jiosseau (4 J low. 640), is derived wholly from tlio pro- viso in § 18 of the act of IK.'JC, in favui- of assignees. If there had been no such reservation, the rigiits of assignccH ac- quired during the first term would have exjjired with its termin:ition, ami tliu exclusive right woiUd have vestal in the patentee. Gibson v. Giffon/, 1 Blatchf., 531.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 31. To enable an assignee to derive any benefit from an extension by an act of Congress, an express provision should be inserted in the grant or assignment, looking to such a renewal. Gibson v. Coolc, 2 Blatchf., 146.— Nelson, J.; N". Y., 1850. 32. Unless there be such a stipula- tion, showing that a renewal was con- templated, the court is bound to con- strue the instrument as relatino: to the existing right, in respect to which the parties are considered as contracthig with each other. loid., 140. 33. Under the decision of Wil$on\. Jiosseau, 4 How., 688, one in the law- ful use and OAvnership of a patented machine, under a purchase made during the original term of the patent, may continue to use such a machine diu'iiig an extension of the patent, imder the provisions of § 18 of the act of 1836; and is also entitled, w^ithin the spirit and intention of tho patent laws, to continue to use such machine during an EXTENSION OF PATENT, C. n2S HKIUTH or AHHIORCGH AM) UTIIKIM IN. after t'xtcnsioii iiiudo by Hpecial act of Coiii'iess, juili's.s lliL'i'o irt womclhiiig in till' laiiguiigt' of the act requiring a dif- foreiit construction. Bloomer v. Me- QiKW'tn, 14 How., 5;)0. — Tan'ky, Cli. ; yui.. Ct., 1852. 34. The inciioato riglitof an inventor to an extension of a patent for lii.s in- vention, is the subject of a contract of sulo. Clum V. JJreioer, 2 Curt., 520. — Ci-iiTis, J.; Mass., 1855. 35. Tlie sale of the " invention " does not necessarily carry witli it this in- clioiito right, but the sale of " my in- vention, and of all rights and jiropcrty that I may have from any lettevs patent for the same," ■would include tiie ex- tended letters patent. //;/< IS of tlic act of IsyU. J'ilts V. Ifall, 3 lilatchf., 'J04.— Hall, J.; N. Y., 1854. 37. Where an agreement Avas enter- ed into between a patentee and another person, that in case of the extension of the patent, such person should have and be entitled to the equal nndivided one-fourth part of all the rights and benefits that should be secured by such renewed patent, for certain states, on paying the proportional one-fourth part of the expenses of obtaining such ex- tension, which agreement Avas also re- corded ; and the patent was extended, and such person endeavored to learn from the patentee the costs of such ex- tension, and expressed himself ready to ay his proportional share thereof, Held, that the agreement was a valid execu- tory agreement, entitling such person to the undivided interest in such patent, on the pcrfiirrnaiice of tho condition pre- cedent of the payment of the (*p(i:ilied portion of such expenses. Ifild., 2Ul. ns. Whether the terms of such an an agreement are not words of grant and conveyance, and whether the agree- ment itself woidd not be a siinicicnt as- signment of the interest in tho exten- sion, if the condition was performed ; qiory. J/)id, 204. at). Jldd, also, that the oiler to pay the proportional psirt of such expenses did not vest in such person the interest in such extension, although it may have enabled him to bring his action and re- covi;r damages for the noii-performanco of tho agreement. Ibid, 205. 40. Under the provisions of § 18 of the act of 1830, an assignee or person in use of the invention at the time of the expiration of the original i)atent, has a right to continue, under an exten- sion of such patent, the use of " the thing patented," whether the patent bo for a process, and a machine to be used in such process, or for a process alone, or for a machine alone, and Avhether the identical machinery in use by such per- son under the extended patent was or was not in existence prior to the re- newal of the patent. Day v. Union Hub. Co., 3 Blatchf., 491, 504.— J I all, J.; X. Y., 1856. 41. AVhere, at the expiration of the original term of the patent, A had a right to use the patented invention for the manufacture of certain articles, and continued, during an extension of tho patent granted under § 1 8 of the act of 1836, the use of the invention, to the extent he was entitled at the time the original patent expired, JIdd, that he K l.i ¥¥^ t ;:f: ^«8 at fa ^^a£. fi>. ■ ....l-ia. i** IMV II •^^ffl.^' 32U EXTKNSIOX OK TATKNT, C. UKIUTH or AHHKINKKH ANU OI'IIKUH IN. ■17 ^•"iiSi >6 liail tlic rii^lit to (•(iiitimit' siicli iiso tliir- iii^' llu! oxlniilfil jiatfiif, as a ]>:itcnt('d invention during; the exleiisii)n, whi'tlier such rit;ht arose from adireet asMi<,'nineiit or grant from the patentee, of a limited or unlimited right to use, or from the purchase of a machiiu'. Ih'td.^ 497. ■\\\. Tiie words of this section as to assignees and grantees seem (o convey the inii)ression that soniething more than the mere ownership of existing machines was intended, iuid that they were intended to embrace all classes of (such assignees and grantees and all in- ventions, whether of machines, processes, or compositions of matter, and to em- brace rights and interests which were ditferent in extent, either of time or territory, or both. Ibid., IDV. 44. l)ut such right is limited to a right to ust\ although the person hold- ing it may also have held, during the original term, an exclusive right to use, to make and vend. And such right to use is secured only to the extent of the respective interests of the assignees or grantees therein. Ibid., 502. 45. If the right to use before the ex- tension was limited to a single state, county, town, or smaller district, it con- tinues during the extension, subject to the same limitations ; and if tlie right Avas to use a certain specified number of machines within a particular district, the limit in number and restriction con- tuuies. Ibid., 503. III. If the only right to use wus nn^. which rcsniled iVnm th«' punliiiMc of a niacliinc, the light to us*- is cn.('xtcnsi\(. with the txi>li'nfc of tlu' niachim., aii'l exi^res with il. /A/r/., 50;}. 47. I'nder |5 IH of tlu^ act of 18;)(j^ the assignees and grantees of a lii'lit to use a patented proi'ess are ciintiMUtil in the right to use it during an extfii- sion of the patent, e(pially with the as- sigiK.'cs and grantees of a right to uisua patei'led machini". Ibid.y 503. 4H. Though \\w cases of Wiiton v. Jiuaseau, 4 How., (i tO; UV/flo/t \. Hiinfy. nun, How., 100 ; aiiatent, to the iiso oi' the i)articular nuichines which tliey had in use at the time of the expiration of the original term, sueli precise question did not arise in their consideration, anj was not necessarily decided in eitlifr one of them. Ibid,, 491, 493. 49. An agreement made Ix'twecii a patentee, who is about to apply for a renewal of his patent, with another, that in case of renewal he will convey to him such renewed patent, in consid- eration of a certain sum, is valid, nml if the patent is renewed, such agreement conveys to the assignee an e(piitahle in- terest or title, which can be converted into a legal title, by paying or offerinj; to pay the agreed consideration. ILirU- horn V. I^ay, 19 How., 220.— Nj;i-so.n, J.; Sup. Ct., 1850. 50. Where a patent had been extend- eil, and the patentee then conveyed all his interest therein to another jieisoii, who brought suit against certain i»artii > for an infrhigement of the patent, and such i^arties claimed, under a liceuije EXTENSION Ol' l'Ari:NT, D. 827 AUTllOUITY ANU roHOH Of liXTKNUKU 1>ATKNT. tViiMi the |>.ili'»tt'0, uihliT tlif original iiHtfiit, //«'/«/, tliiK it wiiM iK'ci'SSiiry for till! tlt't'i'iidaiits to nIhinv ii roiiiKM-tcd (•iKiiii of tith' to tht'insclvcH, in onlcr to iiislify, inuler the chiusi' of J^ IK of tlic art of ISJMJ, nH to aswij^mt'os, thoir use of (ho Inipioveint'nts sccnrfd liy the ijiitcnl. (Hiiiffic V. lion. Jii.UliKi Co., ^2 llow., iJ2;<, 224. — CLua'oui), J.; Sn)!. Ct., 1859. II. AUTIIOIUTY AND FoU(M': OK Y.\- TKNIJISU 1'aTKNT. Soo also Extension ok Patknt, IJ. 1. A renewed patent has tlio same olilii^ation, and confers the same rij^lits \vitl» an orif^inal patent. Th(^ iiiclioate jiruperty, whieli, vested by tlie dis.-ov- eiy, is proIonLfed Ijy the reneweil yAi- eiit, as well as by the original ))atenl. I'Jmns V. JorihiHy 1 IJrock., 254. — 3Iau- miAM,, Cli. .J.; Va., IHia. 2. It is not essential to the validity of a renewed patent, that all thu i)ro- cuediiij^s connected with the renewal hlioiild be set oi.t at lenj^th. Jiroo/cs v. Jh'i'kticU, -i McLean, 4;i5. — !Mc'Lkan, J.; Uhiu, 1M4. 3. It is sufficient if it appear that tlie subject was before the proper officer, and that the decision was in favor of a renewal. Ibid., 435. 4. No ])rior use of a defective patent can authorize the use of the invention, after the emanation of the amended patent under this section. Stlmpson v. West Ches. Ii. Ii. Co., 4 How., 402.— McLeax, J.; Sup. Ct, 1845. 5. In au action by an administrator on a renewed patent, it is not necessary to produce the letters of administration. The patent is proof that the board (or (.-oinmissioner) was satif-lh'd that the ap- plicant was an ailniinistrator, and it is not competent to j^o lichind their or his de- rision. Woiulwiirth V. //H., lH4tJ. 0. AHor the extension of a jt.ntent, under ^ IH of the patent act of ls:in, .!.; N. Y., lM4tl. 7. I'pon liie extension of a p.itent and the proper certiticat^, under |5 1^* of tlio act of 18:10, thu original patent is treated as for one seven years l(,nger. And so if further exteiideil l»y special act of Congress. If exleiidcd in both ways the original jtatent becomes one for twenty-eight yea.s. Woodirurt/i v. J'Jilwiinh, a Wood. &, Min., 125.— \Vo(ji)nLuv, .J. ; .Mass., 1847. 8. And it becomes such a patent, for such term, under one and the same orig- inal specification. Ihith, 125. 0. There is a marked and well recog- nized ditrerent^e between a remmed and a reissued patent. The former grants a wholly new term, the latter legalizes and confers the right during the contin- uance of the original term. 3Ic/iurncy V. Goodyear, 11 Cush., 571. — Mkuuick, .1.; Mass., 185a. 10. The jury are to (letcrmine from the facts in a case, whether a ri'iiewed patent is for the same invention as the original patent. Battinx. Tu'/yert, 17 How., 85. — McLka.v, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 11. If a patentee has established his title under his original i)atent, he is en- titled to a temporary injunction under an extension of such letters patent, without a further trial at law. Clum \. Brewer, 2 Curt., 517, 518. — Cuktis, J. J Mass., 1855. .ir- -"^HM^'U^ *»*'W'\ tL>W%> i 32S KXTK\SH)X OF PATKXT, E. nv Hi'K('i.\i, i.AvvH; iiiiiirrH undib. ^w ^i^. *|.'-:'j^«JlMf|- 3^ m kMl 13. ExTKN'Hiov iiv Si'KciAi, Laws, AM) UuillTS LNIlKU. 1. A p.'ilcntco tiiulcr the nets of Cor>- prcsH iii;iy Ii.ivk tlif (iiiio of liis iiionop- oly t'Xtriidfil liy tilt! lc'j;islatuie of any Btiitc bcyoiul tluj term allowtnl by tlio nets of (\)ii;(i'0S8. Coiij^ress inny HC'ctin; for a limit cmI tiiuo an cxcliisivo li^^lit tliriit the I'nioii ; but there is nothing in the constitution to take away from the states the power toenlari^e the ])rivil(j,'e within their respective juris- ilictioiis. J^lriiKjHtnn \. I'm Li/atent even after the cxpiiMtion of the oiiginal patent. JJla/ir/i. (^m,. Stoi-lc Turning Fac. v. Wiirntr, i Mlatchf., 274, 270.— Nelson, .1.; Ct., 1840. !). Congress has the const if utioiml right to confer a now and further term on the patentee, and that even after lliu expiration of the first. Jilttnchxrd v. Ifayiien, West. Law Jour., 83.— WooDuuuv, J.; N. IL, 1848. 10. Congress has the const itutioniil power to grant an extension of a jiatcnt after it has been once extended under ^ 18 of the act of 1830. The power of Congress was not exhausted in tliks re- spect by the .act of 1830. Jilootiur v. Stalk I/, 5 McLean, IGO, 101.— ]McLkas, J.; Ohio, 1850. 1 1 . There is no provision against a second extension. The policy of the law is to compensate the inventor, and if this object be not attained by a liitit. extension, there would seem to he jus- tice in a sccotid. But this can only be done by act of Congress. Ibid., 162. 12. Under an extension granted by k rKKJNKI) ISSKK, A. 8t0 WIIKM ORDKRBtl. PIUimOH OX. net of CoiigrcHH, tln?ro Ih no v\>^\\i on tlio part of nil awlj^noo or lictniMi'u to (iiiiiiiii"' <'"' '"♦*' "*' '"' nivi'iition lict'on' ux.l liy llit-'iii, iiiilcsH fM, thi'y have no right iiinlcr tlio t«'nn tliorcliy rrf.'itcd, and tlu'V laniiot I'Vi'n coiitinnc in tlio uho ((f iii.'icliint's lawfully const na-ti'il hcforo Hiii'li term, and actually cxistini; and in use wlicn tilt' former tcnii expired, (tih- Knii V. illffoni, 1 IMatchf., 5;tl.— Nki.- suN', i,'t N. Y., 18.")0. 15. To enable an assignee to derive aiiv boiietit from an extension by iict of ('(impress, an express jirovision should liL' inserted in the grant or assignment, looking to sneh u renewal. Gibson v. Co<>h\ 2 Blatchf., 140.— Nklsox, J.; N. Y., lHr)0. 10. Olio in the lawful use of a nia- c'liiiie under a purcliaso during the ori- ginal term of the patent, is entitled, within the spirit .-md intention of the ]i;iti'iit laws, to continue such use during ail extension made by an act of Con- ;,'rcss, unless there is something in the laii^'ii.'ige of the act requiring a dift'er- ciit construction. lilooiner v. McQue- mil, 14 How., 550. — Tanky, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 1852. 17. A special act in relation to any [tarlicular natent is to be considered as Liignifted upon the general acts relating to patents ; they are statutes in pari makria, and all relate to the same sub- ject and inuKt l)o construed together. //>/ 1'ka«TICK ON. 1. Where witnesses diftcr as to the fact of iiifringcnient, the ipiestion should be Hiibmitted to ii jury, either by an ac- tion at law, or an issue directed by the court. JiraofcH V. IliiA/icll, ;t McLean, •J(52.— MiLkan, .T. ; Ohio, 184:). 2. Where, on a bill fili'd to restrain i\ defendant from infrii ing u patent-right, the infringement is a. iiied and the evi- dence is coiiilicting, the court will send an issue to a jury, or refer the c.iiise to a master to hear further testimony, and make a report as to the points in issue. Parker v. HiU field, 4 McLean, 02.— McLkan, J.; oiiio, 1845. 3. A uigned issue, directed by the chancery side of a court, is not a mere form, but such issue is sent out to re- lieve the court, in matter of doubt, or because from the nature of the case, and the conflict of testimony, it is til for a jury to decide. Brooks v. Jiiiknclly 4 McLean, 12. — McLkax, J. ; Ohio, 1845. 4. In patent cases, involving the struc- ture of comjdicated machinery, the suf- ficiency of their description, and their identity in principle Avith other ma chines, an issue is appropriately sent to a jury. Jbid., 72. iw- ^1 Br. 4 1 k "■"rw . > 930 rKHJ.VKI) ISSI'K, A. win OHDKIUCI). VH\< IM I oH. ^ 'i.^ ■•'<:• H An iui»wiT, If intiMnlt'il lo ntrin iiii ixMiU' tit II}' tin- valitlily of 11 |iiit»'iit, 111'- rtiiMi* not ofi^'iniil, hIioiiIiI hi'I out llic tianii'N of placi'M iiuil ptTNotiN, wIutc ami by wlioiM a liki' invnitiiui or tiling; hinl ln't'ii iiM'il. Orr V. Mirrill, 1 Wood, tt Min,, ;i7H. — \V«»oiniiuv .1.; IM»'., iHiil. 0. A trial tu t«>Nt tlic valiility of a {mtiMit, \* not ii^ court ill clianci'ry, iiur ol^n in i»u«'H xi-iit from lliin- to tin- law >u\v of tlio court to ]»o wttli'su('H arc scut to l»c tried at law, it is proper, iiinlcr tliosu in- nucs, to have all the npecilic notices giv- cMi hy the (Icfciwlant in detail of pci-Noim and places connected with the fo"nier UHe of the pl;iiniin"s invention. //'A/., 878. 8. On the cpiestion t)f the iiifrinj^e- nient of a patent, in a Hiiit at ('(juity, a feiyneil issue will not hi' awanhid, un- less the court have doubts as to the identity of the two machines. V(ot,, 1 IMatchf., 104.— Xi:i.so\, .T. ; X. y.. Is to. 0. It is not a matter of course, to or- der a fcignt'd issue; but the party iip- jtlyin^ must lay a foundation for it. A feijjjned issue is not tobej^ranted unless the opiiiidii of the jury on a ;, feijiiu'ii i»»«iu< for the trial of a fut \,y ;, jury in ordered Ity the court, the rim,. can be put oit tho trial HmI nt oiirt>, aiil llm jury bo Hworn to try in the luiin and in tho word* of the order itMtll'. \,, declaration or pleading of any nort U re\v trial on the ground of surprise in ro- jccting testimony, the plaint ill' (ijcj j bill for u perpetual injunction, ami an account. The (h'feiidants pui in iluii miHwer, setting ii]> Hulmtantially tlieiiiat- ters used on the motion Ibr a new tiial. .\l\crw U'd they nutved for Ieavet(i|iiil ill an amended answer, on the ;,'iiniii(l of tho di—overy of now and important evidi'iice, aflectinij^ the novelty (if the plaintiirs invention -th«' only tpu^tiiiii litigated on the form, r trial beiiij,' that of infringement — and also moved for n feigned issue to try the (lUestioii of tlu' novelty of tho jdaintiirs iiiveiitidii, //ltd, that the originality of tlio plain- titPs inventi(m being denied, it was ;i proper case for the granting of an or- der allowing a feigned issue. Ilmti: v. SM>ij, 1 Ulatchf., .')45, 640,548.— Nel- son, J.; N. Y., 1850. 14. Where on a bill for an injum'tioii. it appeared that there had been tliioi' trials at law, in which there had been a verdict in favor of each party plaiiititr and defend.ant, and a divided Jury (Hi the other trial, and originality of inven- tion was denied, //«/(/, that the (itu'stinii of originality could not be considortd settled, and therefore decision was siii- ponded on the injunction, and an ac- count was ordered, and an issue was sent to be tried before a jury as to the (lues- i .*^«% IKKiNKI) ISSUE, A. H. Ml wiiR!f cmnRRNP. irnrr or rciimcT tit. timi iif Drij^iimlily. Jlfrn v. Sfr court, not iK'cmiNf iilli«'i' p.iily may tli- nijinil it »ri A rij^lit, or that a coint of ('(iiiily is iii('oin|U'ttiit to jihIjl;*' of (jncs. lions of tiu't, or of Icj^al titles, fioo^- i/eiir\. l*"lfi 'i Wall, I'r., 'JIKI. — (ikikii, ■.!.; N. .1., IH.-.'J. Itl. In tlHM'onrtH of tlu' I'liiliMl States llio |tra«'tieo of Heni|iii<4 parlies to a tiittl at la>v is by no means as eoinnioii a» in Kni-'lainl, or as it woiiM lie if (lie troulile of trun^ issues at law (|e\olveil upon ailitVerenl court; anil siu'li courts (Id mil always consider it a proper ex- t'l'ciso of tlu'ir * on cvhiliitH and |ii'iMits, and a careful consideration of the lestiiuuny, felt IK> douht or diUlcul- ty on the i(put(>N the vaK lity of the p.at- ent. <,'it<)ifi/,ttr v. /->(///, MS, — (JlMKlJ, .1.; N. .1., |H.')'.>. 111. Where on a bill filetl for the in- fringement of a patent, and for an in- junction, the d«'fenci« was m-t up that the invention had been known and iisecl prior to ihe invention thereof liy the patentee, but the evidence wan ho un- certain and insuHlcient that no satisfac- tory judgmeiil couhl be foumled Upon it, //(/ modo, and give it a limited efTect only, lijid, 740, 3. liut it can never be known wh.it (•fVect is given to the verdict, or whether any is given to it, until a subsequent artnf^ i, >■■- .j^-, «^'l -H -^ -^•-vwi^ " ti>^ I,, I tiNl ; ni S^.h— f. ^w*r:;»te Ml KOIIKKJV PATKNT. eKAKiNii •!• »s liOMi PAVon. MOW raovm. *'4. *)'♦*. ))i>nriti({ upon ihn iiuiritN, niiil a tliTri'i' rciulvrttil ilii'rciiii by tli(> ciMirt. /AA/., 746. 4. AVIifllu'r n vvniict in n miiU nl law \h I'xir cvi'li'iirt' of ttny tliiii)x« I'lil tlu< fiirj that it wiis n lulrrctl, iintcMH ii iinli»- imiit \\Hf> Im'i'Ii duly irtiiini'd tln'ii'oii ; qutry. Ihlil.^ 74«. ft, A vt'iilift on an is<.iii> nl law,
  • ^roiuiil it is ii^aiiist IIm' wt'ij^lit of i>vii|(, luilcMM I In' |»r<'- poiKlfraiico if* v«'ry ("Icar. JlfonAn v. Mirkinll, » M(L«IU1, !2, 74.— Mt T.KAN, J.; Oliio, iHt,'). tt. AfltT II jury liiivc panMcd upon tlio qnotiunx NiilMnittcMl to thciii on a li'i<,'nt>*l issui', it i^ Cor llif conrt to say wlu'lmr tin' \cii|ii't in iii,'lit ; ami tin' ((nirt i lay let it. aNJik'. I'li/i Jlonk V. J'l iiJl< tcui, 1 lllatchf., lOfl.— ISKHri, J.; N. Y., 184U. 7. A vordlct rcinli'rt'il by tlic jufy on u It'i'jin'd issue is in)t ru'ccssaiilv fon- cliiHJvt' or coiitrollinu; upon tin- court (lirt'('tin<; siieli iswut' ; but such vcnlicf nmy bu (lisrcf^'ardcil, an. 0, A verdict at law, f)r a fiiidiiijj^ in case of a feigned issue, is never conclu- nive upon a j'ldge sitting in equity. The judgment of the judge upon the law and the evidence must determine hiM nt'tion, nnil not tlio juilKnieiif of t|i„ jury. Ihiy v. nu. 'J, Where M. made bin first applicii- tioti for a patent in IMay, 1848, wliicli application was afterward witlidia\Mi, but was instantly renewed, and in tlio same words, and W. obtained foivijrn patentH for tlio Kiuno invention in July, IHIH, !ind before the il;ite of such second or renewed application, //efd, that tho two applications of ,M. were to he con- sidered as a continuous application, so that MX months h.id not e.vpired, at'tor the issue of sueli foreign patents, before M.'s application. ff>id. .*?. It seems, however, th.it the foreign patent, to affect the issno of a hoinu patent to the original and first involit'T, '■S^^'' FOllM. mUMMM mi WVM FAtmTABIJ, AND WHM KUt. „iu«t l)«) Imiio*! luTort! tlii> Aiii"rii-nii itU- 4, A Miiti'*!) |>i>t<'til, )*oiii;; niillii'iiti- citixl liy tlu' ;^it':il Hcril, iimviH ilwt'll'; I, lit in only pritmi J'lhir •> iili'iit'i', um n pati'iit i>»i«ii«'«l J»y <»iir own Kovorniii» iit, llirtt tlui liiv»'iitioii wu« of HiiiiK' prnliii- 1,1,1 \iiliu>. nnuw illVtilli"". lllllKt llllVl' ImM'M ft'lfi hfnl Im'- fori' ill*' ilLst'DVfry or iiivi'tilinn Inn-; hihI not UHTi'Iy lu'lnni tho ii|>|ilicuti(»ii. Jliiw: V. Mt>rto>iy l:i Mo. Liiw Ufp., "o. — Si'itAin K, J. ; MiiMM., lH(i(). 0. All invt'iilioii is not " |»!ili'nti'tl" in Kti,i;lini' foiiiplot)* npt'citic.'ition In-i )MM>ri ciin)II<'!>l. 7. WluTc lottorM patent wcro f{ranti>i| in En;il;iiul to V, lunl (t. for iniprovi,*- iiiriitsin wcwiiij^ uiacliint's, in DfcfmlMT, 1HI4, Itiit tim Hpt'ciHciitioM was not v\\- riilleil until Juni', lHtr>, and II. coni- jili'toil an iuvcntion for a Hiiiillar itn- lirovi'int'iit or arranpcinont as tliat ili>- scrilii'd in ¥. ami (I.'h spi'cifu'ation, in M:iy, 1H45, but \m appliration for a pat- iiit was Hiihscquentto June, 184ri, Ifvld, that F. atul O.'h invention was not jxtt- m(ed until aOcr H.'h invention, and tli:it II. was entitled to a patent under the ]ir()visions, and within the meaning of, § 15 of the act of 1830. Ibid. FORM. See also Colorable /xteratioxs. 1. Whether an improvement is on the l»rint'ifilt> «»f n luai'hiiie, •)r on \\\t' j\>rin itr fifi>fH>ttioh» riieri'ly, Im u «pie«iioii of fai'l fur the jury, lintijrn V. h'-inmfi-g, I Wash., 171. WAMiii\uit)N, J.; I'li., IHOI. 'i. All improveinent hi lli«/«m« or fifn/Hirlionanf i\ niaehitie ii'wvn no ri;^lit to tiHe the orij^iind niachini>. //»/ in lej^al contemplation. /)ijr<>n V. Min/rr, 4 Wash., 71. — Wash- in* iTo.v, .1.; I'a., 1«'21. 7. Improvements in tlio form or pro- portions of an itivention, adopted in coiise«pience of the suj^f^estioiis of tho mechaiiii! employed to make tho Hj»eoi- meii, or of others, arc not inventions or improvements for which a patent eoiild be obtained, nor can they invalidate tho patent for tlio thing to which they were .applied. Pennock v. DiaUujne, 4 W^ash., 544. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1825. 8. Suggestions of alterations in tho form or proportions of a machine are not such a discovery as will entitle tho pui ty making them to a patent therefor. -i::. ■~ V-< gij : ""w m. ^Wl !*'#. '»Wl> 834 Fomr. (•1I.\N(1K.S in; WIIKN VATKXrAlll.K, AND WllKN NOT. :m^A ^^iii*" A Hi "«» Miffson V. Ji/aifi'fi, 4 Wiisli., 582.— Wasiiin(;to\, J.; I'u., iHJd. 0. It iH liot every elian^e of form aii«l jtroixirtioii which is deelared (muler the at't of 17i>;t, J; 2) to bo no diseovery> l»iit siU'Ii as is simply a cliaiiij;e of form ami ])r()|ior(loii, ami notliiiij^ more. If, by ehaiiLfing the form ami proportion, a new ellect is proilueed, there is not wim- jily a chant^c of form and proportion, but of ehaiif^c of principle also. JJaria V. Ptdnur, 2 IJrock., 310. — Makshall, Ch. J.; Va., 1827. 10. Tn every case, it is a question for the jury, whether the chan- 2)le, 2 McLean, ',\8. — 3IcLi:an, J. ; Ohio, 1880. 13. A slight alteration in the struc- ture of a mj'chine, or in the improve- ment of it, will not entitle an indivi of grinding them, on a cylinder, iiisttail of one, or in attaching that one to a flange on the cylinder by screws instead of attachl.ig it to the cylinder by riuf's at the end ; Ifcld, not to be a siilli(i(>iit change in form, or jjrinciple, or results to justify ;i patent. Howy v. .S'^(y;^^•, 1 Wood. Sc Min., 209, 300.— Wood. ni'jtv, J.; ^fass., 1840. 17. Tiiere must be difrerencc in iniii- ciple to constitute a patentable dilVi.r- euce. A more change of form will not do, unless lorm . a part of the \\\\\\ft invented, and is essential to iis viiliie. Mdinj v. Jayijcr, 1 IJlatchf. 3.SU. — Xel- sox, J.; X. Y., 1848. 1 !. If, however, the form is a mate- rial ;»art of the discovery, and is essen- tial to its V .lue, then a dejiarture from the form wou'.d be a substantial (lepart- ure, because form is essential to the in- vention, livid.., 380, 087. 19. There are, however, many new manufacf iu'es, where the particular ibriii of the thing is not essential to its utility, and there may be a departure from that form, and still be no substantial change, because the particular form is not esst'ii- ti.al to the production of the mamitac- ture. Ibid., 380, 387. 20. .An improvement in a burring machine consisted of hooked teeth, cut upon rings or plates, and those so ar- ranged upon the cylinder that the wool or cotton, when taken up by the tcctli, would be drawn into the interstices be- tween the teeth,' leaving the burrs and other foreign substances on the surt'ict', to be knocked off by the beater ; IIcU, that the change of form of the teeth from that of gullet teeth, Laving large slots FOKM Nv ClIANUKt: iN; WHEN I'ATKXTADI.e, AND \VIIKM NOT. ;it tlio l)ott(iin, to that of the letter V, son* ^*^ iiiiiko the hIoIs iit the Itottom muhIIci", to opcnito bi'ttt'i" on thi- cotton, lie, wii!* not " . .ibstJUiti;il chiiiigi' in tin- iMiiistnu'tion, bnt a niodilication of foruj, wliii'li was a natural rosull of workin;^ ;!u' iiKU'hhic. Varkltio'Ht v. ICuiHtnuti, 1 r.latclif. 401, 407, 408.— Nklsun, J.; X. Y., 1H40. lil. Form and structure are very ini- piirtaiit matters in machinery : if they e.i- .ibk't lie operator to do the work in a In t- Wx iiiMD'UT, or with more case, or less ex- iii'iiso, or in less tinie, they are not an in- turfcrencc, but constitute a jjatentablc iiniirovement. Jialn v. J/(>;w,]MS. (A|H). Cas.)— CuANCii, CIi. .1. ; J). C, 1^40. l!2. AV'heii the aiii)lication is for a pat- ent for a combination of machinery ami miitcrials, forn\ and structure bi'come sufisfitiicc. Form and structure consti- tute the identity of macliincry. I/>i(/. 23. A mere ditFerence in form or size is !i(»t a diil'erence in priiu'iple. I'ootr V. SUshij, 1 Blatchf., 430.— Nklson', J. ; X.Y., i-40. 24. A formal change in a machine by adofeudant, will not distinguish the in- vention or thing used from that of the plaintiff. Tliat is an evasion. The change iinist be substantial. It must be a dif- ference in the mechanical structure, in the physical existence of the thing, and ;ilso iu its practical operation and effect in producing the result. Back v. Jhr- hunice, 1 Blatch., 406. — Nelsox, J. ; X. Y., 1840. 25. A mere change in form or pro- portion, or a substitution of mechanical means or equivalents in any one or all the elements of a combination ])roducing the same results, does not constitute a substantial difference. Gorham v. J//x- kr^ 1 Anier. Law Jour., X. S., 543. — Spk^gue, J. ; Muss., 1849. 2(i. A formal change, s\ich as a chango in proportions, a mere change of form, or a dilKrctit shape, is not a clumge, within tlie nu-aning of tlie patt'ut law, Muflicicnt to support w patent. JfnU. v. Wiles, 2 lliatchf., 2U0.— NixsoN, J. ; N. v., iHr.i. 27. A change iu tiie form of a ma- chine, end)odying, however, tiu' princi- ple and subHtaiu-e of a prior invention, and which is only the result of practi- cal experience in the use of sucli prior invention, is not .lu improvenu'iit upon such former invention. Tntcif v. Tf, 2 iJlatchf., 27H.— Nklson, *.T. ; N. Y., 2.S. A change in form from the con- struction of an existing nuichiue, or in its proportions, is not a substantial change, in tlie eye of the patent law. Such changes re(iuire no gri'at ingemi- ity, ond do not call for tlie exercise of the inventive faculty; they are simply the work of a mechanic. Tuthiim v. Le Itoy, 2 Ulatchf., 485, 480.— Xki.sox, J.; X. Y., 1852. 29. Under our law, a patent cannot bo granted for merely a change of form. § 2 of the act of 179;} so declared in ex- press terms, and though this declara- tory law was not re-enacted in the law of 1830, it is a principle which necessa- rily makes part of every system of law granting patents for new inventions. WiiKinn V. DaoncAnI, 15 How., 341. — Cuin-is, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 30. ]Nrerdy to change the form of a machine is the work of a constructor, not an inventor ; such a change cannot be deemed an invention. P>id., :541. 31. Where a patent was gra-Ued for [ constructing the body of a railroad ear I in the form of the frustum of a cone, and the claim was for making it in sucli form Avhereby certain specified advau- I ' im i^i •■' '~::m ^3 ^^ ji^ '■' ''^ -TbagLA %«t m ,,^^tii^ Ci. ' i, '^ »». ■ I- 1 •Vlf i 11 •h-.«n, and lhcre1)y attained the same result. Ibid., 341-344. (Tanky, Ch. J. ; Catkox, Dan- iel, and Camphell, JJ., dissenting.) 32. Where a particular geometrical form is alone capable of embodying a pat- entee's invention, if the form is not used, the invention is not cojjied, and there is no infringement ; otherwise where that particular form is the best, but other forms may and do embody the inven- tion. I/ikl., 343. 33. Patentees sometunes add to their claims an express declaration to the ef- fect that the claim extends to the thing patented, however its form or j)ropor- tions may be varied. But this is un- necessary. The law so interprets the claim without the addition of these w^ords. Ibid., 343. 34. Where a patentee describes a ma- chine, and then claims it as described, he is genenilly understood to claim, and does, by law, actually cover, not only the precise forms he has described, but all other forms which embody his in- vention. Ibid., 343. 35. There may be cases, as in Davis V. Palmer, 2 Brock., 309, where the letters patent include only the particu- lar form described and claimed; but the reason why such a patent covers only one geometrical form is not that the patentee has described and claimed that form only, but because siuli r.niu only is capable of end)odyiiig iiis iuvcu. tion ; and consequently, if the form is not copied, the inventit)n is not usod. Tbid., 343. 3(!. Where form and substance are in. separable, it is enough to look at tlio form alone. Where they are 8ep;iriil)lc — where the whole sMbstanc(> of the in- vention may be copied in a diHiivnt form, it is the duty of courts and jmii's to look through the form for the .sub- stance of the invention — for that wliidi entitled the inventor to his patent, ami which the j)atent was designed to .si- cure ; wdiere that is found, there is an infringement, and it is no defence tliat it is embodied in a form not deseribod, and in terms not claimed by the paten- tee. Ibid.., 343. 37. It is a well settled principle of law, that the mere change in the foini of machinery (unless a particular form is specified as the means by m liich the effect described is produced), or an al- teration in some of its unessential part:*, or in the use of known ecpiivalent pow- ers, not varying essentially the maeliino, or its mode of operation, or organiza- tion, will not make the machine a new invention. G'lteilly v. Morse, 15 How., 123. — Tankv, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 1853. 38. A mere change in the form of ma- chinery, or the means specified by which the result or effect described is produ- ced, or an alteration in some unessential parts, or a substitution or use of known I mechanical powers, not varying essen- tially the machine, or its mode of oper- ation or organization, is not invention, Amer. Pin Co. v. Oakville Co., 3 A. L. R., 138; 3 Blatchf., 192. — Nelson, Lvoer- BOLL, JJ.; Ct., 1859. 39. Where in a patent for improve- ments in cooking stoves, the claim was i FRAUD AM) FUArDrLKNT INTENT. WHAT DKKMKD TO IIE ; ErFRC'T OF. "tlie placiiij; the flre-dianilKT in the iiiiildle of the oven, so that the hitter iimv recc^ive the he:it on three siiles at once," but there was no peculiarity in the oven or lire-chamber, and the in- vcntii)n appeared to be, that iuMtead of forming tliree ovens or comj)art- meiits around tlie iire-ehamber as usual, tlif inventor removed tiie partitions be- hind the fire-chamber, and made a sin- gle cooking space instead of three ; (jtfe- ri/, whether the change is a j)atentable (li>cuv('ry. IVilnuii v. Joiics !< Ulalchf., iL'D.— Hktts, J. ; N. v., 1654. 40. A change of form merely, or of ineclianical structure, the jiractical ef- fect of Avliich is small, and from which no new or materially improved result is obtuiuod, is not the subject of a patent. Sarf/einit v. Larned, 2 Curt., 349. — C'Lims, J. ; Mass., 1855. 41. A patent for an improvement in applo-paring machines, consisted in so iittiicliing the knife-block to the rod, which moves it, as to allow the knife- block to rotate round the rod at right angles, to accommodate itself to iiy ir- regularities in the surface of the fruit. The defendants, instead of making the knife movable in the rod, made the rod movable in its socket, but the knife- block had the same motion ; Ifeld, that it was only a change of form, and an in- fringement on the patent. Ibid., 349. 42. If the article produced is substan- tially the same with tlie one patented, tile variations being in form and not in substance, or where no new or substan- tial result is produced, it Avill not affect tlie right of the patentee, but is an infringement on his rights. Teeae v. Phelps, 1 McAllis., 49. — McAixisteb, J.; Cal., 1855. 43. Mere formal changes of machin- ery do not evade a patent. Sickles v. 22 Borden, 3 Ulalchf., .541. — Nelson, J.; N. v., 18 ')(•). 44. However difiereiit apparently the arrangements and combinations of a ma- chiiic »!iay be from the machine of an inventor, it may in reality embody his invention, and be as much an infringe- ment !is if it were a servile copy of the plaintilf's m.achine. Ibid, 45. A change in the forms or propor- tions of instrumentalities — a substitu- tion of one motive power for another — a diffiu'ent position or gearing of the working apparatus — a superior iiiiish in any other particular, resting in mere mechanical skill or taste, and not involv- ing invention — does not render ma- chines appearing to the eye exceedingly unlike, substantially difterent in judg- ment of law. Smith v. llifjgina, 31S. — JJetts, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 4G. Although there m.ay be a differ- ence in form between two devices .idoj)- ted for a given jmrpose, yet if there is no substantial difference in i)rincii)le, a patent will not be granted. Chatfield cfc Dutcher, Ex parte, ]VIS. (App. Cas.) — MoRSKLL, J.; D. C, 1859. 47. Differences in size and proper tions, so long as the construction, arrange- ment, prhiciples, and n^ode of opera- tion are substantially the same, are en- tirely immaterial. Gahoon v. Ming, Mi) —Clifford, J.; Me., 1859. FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT IN- TEJJT IN RESPECT TO PAT- ENTS. 1. If, of two joint inventors of a ma- chine, one of them, without the other relinquishing his interest to a joint in- terest in the patent-right, obtains a pat- ''!:^\ ^^'tetivi 338 FRATTD AND FRAUDULENT INTENT. a ' •■■ '4i!>f t *^j,'.*-*..ui^j ^«r;>' ^►•l... Hf'. /"•lila.li WHAT DEKMKD TO HE; EKFECT OK. cnt in liis own nanip, lie will bo flocnicd guilty of ii fraiul, and will in i'(iuity be considered ns n truHtee for tlno other. Jieutffcn V. JCanowrs, 1 Wash., 171. — VVAHiiix'ifna facie. Good- year V. Day, MS. — Griee, J. ; N. J., 1850. 'flit sc.^c IE' I,. I* ^^wi w..:M^ak mf ' A ',i^^:^^ 'fl^ny'- 340 FRAUD AND FltAUDl'LENT INTENT. WHAT DKKUKD TO BK; KFfKCT OF. i f j^«i«»; 20. The fact of procuring ii patent for a iicwaiKl useful iiiachino, uinlty tlio as- hiiinptioii of a roissuf, which was not use- ful as patented in the surrendered patent, for want of Home parts use/. niiifit/s v. J/ildrcfh, 10 III., 215.— Scates J.; III., 1N54. 25. Parties to a fraiul cannot avoid the act for the fraud. Ibid., 215. 20. If the party injured acquiesce in or confirm the contract with a kuowl- edge of the fraud, no one can have a right to annul it for him. Ibid., iiio. 27. A contract for the purchase of a patent, may be rescinded for false and fraudulent representations, constiliitini; an inducement to it, and Avliether the party making them knew them to In- false or not. GatUng v. Ncwall, 9 Irul., 570. — Pkiikixs, J.; Sup. Ct., InJ., 1857. 28. But such representation nnist be as to a fact or facts, and go to a niati'- rial issue ; and nnist be one on whirli the party to whom it is made has a ri^ht to, and does rely. Ibid.., 676. 29. A party, however, who woull rescind a contract on the ground of fraud, must offer to do so within a rea- sonable time after the fraud is discover- ed. Ibid., 511. 30. The defence that the plaintiff had " surreptitiously and unjustly obtain- ed the patent foi- that which was in fact invented or discovered by another, who was using reasonable diligence in adapt- ing and perfecting the same," does not necessarily imply bad faith on the part of the patentee, against whose patent this defence is set up. The injustice re- lied on is rather injustice in the abstract, than resulting from any intentional wrong of such patentee. The words were intended to be used, and are used in their broadest sense. Phelps, Dodge d; Co. V. Brown Bros., 18 How., Pr., 9. —Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1859. GENKUAL ISSUE, AND NOTICE, A. 341 KVIIiBKOK UNDIR OKMKRAL IdMUB. GEXEKAL ISSUE AND NOTICE OF Sl'ECIAL MATTElt. \, EvinRNCB UNDKn Orskral ISSUH 341 B, When Notice iikquiukd ; what to CONTAIK 3t2 C. Whbs SPEOuii Pleas ALLOWADI.K lilO A. Evidence undkk General Issuk. 1. Thoro is no limitation of time in wliicli !i ik'fcndiuit may not plead tlio ('cneral issue and give in evidence that the plaintiff was not the original inven- tor of the thing for whieh the patent was granted. ICvans v. Ktiton^ Pet. C. C, 348, — Wasiiinotox, J. ; I'a., 1810. 2. Whether in an action for an in- fringement of a patent-right under the general issiie, the oltjeetion can bo taken to the validity of the p.ateiit, that the thing p.'itented was not useful, and had been abandoned; query. The defence is by no means involved in the gcner.al issue. Gray v. Jnes, Pet. C. C, 402. — Wasuin-gtox, J. ; Pa., 1817. 3. The originality of an invention is not in issue on a plea of not guilty. Ev- ans v. Hettiek, 3 AVash., 411.— Wash- ington, J. ; Pa., 1818. 4. Under the plea of the general is- sue, the defendants may give in evi- dence the act of Congress without no- tice ; but this permission extends no fur- ther than to exempt the defendant from the necessity of pleading the statute specially, which, where it is of a pri- vate nature, it would otherwise be nec- essary to do. ITneass v. Schvylkill Bank, 4 Wash., 11. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1820. 5. Matters of a special nature, other than those enumerated in § of the act of 1793, as alienage of the plaintiff, and a license by him to use the patented in- vention may also bo given in evidence under tlu' general issue, ff/id., 11. 0. The defences enumerated in § of the act of 1703, that the specillcation iloes not contain the whole truth rela- tive to the discovery, or that it contains more than is necessary to produce the desired eflect, and this with a view to deceive the public, cannot be set up at the trial, luiless due notice li.as been given to th(3 plaintiil". Ifjitf., 13. 7. But under the general issue with- out notice, tiie defence may be made that the patent is broader than the dis- covery ; that it is for an improvement which the specification does not so par- ticularly describe as to distinguish it from the original invention ; that the suggestions of the petition arc not re- cited in the patent, and others similar in principle. lOid., 13. 8. Evidence on the part of the de- feiulant as to whether the m.achine used by him is like the model of plaint iff's machine, j)roduced in court, is proper under the general issue, and no notice is necessary to authorize such inquiry. EiHius v. llettick, 7 Wheat., 409. — Sto- itv, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1822. 9. Under the plea of the general issue, without a notice to that effect, or spe- cial pleas setting up such defence, evi- dence tending to show a want of novel- ty in the invention claimed by the plain- tiff, is not admissible. Moot v. Ball^ 4 jNIcLean, 180. — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1846. 10. A witness cannot be asked wheth- er there are not other machines in use similar to that patented by the plaintiff, unless notice is given, as the statute re- quires. Parker v. Ildworth, 4 McLean, 371.— McLean, J. ; 111., 1848. 11. Under a plea of the general •< K^r T ^;W' *• ■.,. w V'Vl •.,,,.. ~,.' H ■'Viv»M« :^fc-:.5'' S4a r.KXKKAL ISSUK, AND XOTICK, H. WIIKN MHlct: UKgUlttKU; WUAY TO CONTAIN. '\m'^r ■if ^•"' a isHiiP, (ivitlfiici' may h<« liitnMliici'cI to bhow fruiul <»r rrumliilfiit n-prcsi'titii- tioiiH oil tliu piirt oi' lliu plaiiitiir us to the Huhji'ct iiiatUT of tilt' Hiiit. Good- year v. JJity, MS.— Giueb, J.; N. J., 1«50. B, WUKX NOTICK UlCqUIBKU; WHAT TO CONTAIX, 1. go of tlie act of 170.3, <1ooh not cmimorato all the (U'loiicos of wliicli the (lefrtidaiit may icgiilly avail liitusclf ; liu may give in evidi'iico that In; ncvei' iVhI the act attrihiitiiil to him, that the pat- tiiituc is an aliuii not entitle*! nnder the net, or tliat ho lias a license or authority from the |)!itentee. Whittnnore v. Cut- ter^ 1 Call., 436. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. Under § of the net of 1793, in an action for a violation of a patent, if the general issue be pleaded with iu)tico of sjiecial matter th.it the patentee is not the original inventor, it will he sufficient in such notice to state that the plaintilV is not the first inventor, without setting forth who was the inventor, or specify- ing where the machine had been used. JEvtnis V. Jvremer, Pet. C. C, 215. — Wasuington, J.; Pa., 1810. 3. If the notice specify where the machine h.-vd been used, evidence may be given of its use in other pl;iccs than those particularly specified. Tbkl., 215. 4. Under a notice of special matter, specifying certain pliices in which a ma- chine like that of which the ]»laintitr claimed to be the inventor, had bet-n in use anterior to the supposed discovery of the plaintiflF; Held, that the plaintiff could give in evidence that such ma- chine had been used in places other than those particularly named in tlie notice. Evans v. Eaton^ Pet. C. C, 3:»8.— Wasiiinotun, J.; Pa., 1810. [Af. firnu'd pi^st 1 1.] 5. All matters of defence or of oh- jection to n patent are not enuinerati'.l in J5I5 and 10 of the act «»f 1703. J^nw ill \. Lewis, 1 Mas., 180. — Stouv, J. • Mass., 1H17. 0. Hut it is not a nuitter of defence that the invention of tlie patentee is not of such general utility as to supcisnlc others of the same kind in use. Ibid. 180. 7. The object of the stattite of 1703, ch. 9, 55 0, was to guard against defeat- ing patents by tliij settitig up a prior in- vention which had never been lediici'd to practice. If it was the mere specu- lation of ii philosopher or a nicchaiiiclun, which hail never been tried by the test of experience, and never put in actual operation by him, the law would not deprive a subse(]uent inventor, who had employed his labor and his talents in putting it into practice, of the rowanl due to his ingenuity and enterprisr. Bedford V. Hunt, 1 JNIas., 305.— Stouy, J.; Muss., 1817. 8. Although in the statute, § of the act of 1793, a prior patent is not nien- tioned in the notice of special matter to be given in evidence, this omission docs not afford suflicient ground to rejort such evidence, but it furnishes a reason to recjuiro the defendant to give !i sati.v factory explanation of the i)rinciples of the machine described in such patent, and the manner in which it is openitcd. Gray v. James, Pet. C. C, 400. — Wash- ington, J.; Pa., 1817. 9. The section of the patent act rela- tive to noti- js of special matter with the general issue, appears to have been drawn on the idea that the defendant would not be at liberty to contest the validity of a patent on the general issue ; OENEUAL ISSIIK, AND NOTICK, H. 343 WIIRN NOTICB ItRgi'lRNn; WHAT TO CI)!fTAI!f. iiiitl iiitcixlM to rt'licvu tlu) tlufciKliint from tlit^ (lirtlciiltk's <»t' |»l('iullnf,', l)y al- litwini; liiiii t(» give ill cvidnico tnattiM' wliiili arti'cts tlu! piiti'iit. SiuOi notice is liowi'vor for tlio Hocurity of tho pluiii- titV, utid to protect him iifjiiiiist that sur- piist' to wiiicli III! iiii^lit 1)0 exposed from iin unfair use of the privilej^e. J'A'diis V. Katony :» Whiat., 50:J, 504. — Makhiiaix, J. ; Sup. Ct., Irtl8. 10. Ami Hiu'li notiec neeil only l»e ifivcii when it is intended to oiler the (iiu'cial mutter in evideneo on the j^eii t'liil issue. The /r pri'vioiiN iiivni- >inii, kiii>\vlcii;;t', or iist> of tlit> tliiii|; |ii tcritcii, ho iiiiiiHt, iiinlor (} 15 nt'ilic it«-t of IHIKI, ^ivit nolicu of the p««rm»iiK l»y Ullntll h«> illtfllils to |>I'CIV«> Hllcll flK't. ^^'itllotlt Niicli notice Ik* fuiiiiDt cxiiiiiiiK* witiii'HHt'H relative thereto, iititl tlie otn/,H ftrof'iimfi in on tll^ tlefetnlaiil to show that thi' notice has Itecn jriveii. /*////. lb Ti-rti. A'. A". V. Sthiijmoiu 1 1 IVi., irii). — Stoijv, .F.; Slip. Ct., iHto. lil. The lani,'iia;,'e «il' I lie a«M ot" is;i(l, ^ IT), reipiireH iiothiii than the imiiieM ani|. The nanies and resiiUnces of all the witnesses who are to lie sniiinioned tioed not hepven. Wilton v. 7'/ii liuil- roadu^ 1 Wall, Jr., lt).'». — (iisiicit, .1.; I'u., 1847. 22. This provision was intended to guard against surprise from siieli evi- dence as Avas {xiveii in Whitney's e.nse, the cotton pjin ; one witness testifying that li(! had seen such an invention in Knj^Iand, Keventeeii years liefore; and another, that he had seen a like machine in Ireland. Ibid., lt)5. 23. In the notice of special matter, the defeinlant is only recjuired to fj;ive notice of the name of the person having a prior knowledge, and need not give the names of the witnesses by wlioin Hueh jirior knowledge is to be proved. Many v. Jdytjer, 1 Jilatchf. 370. — Nel- son, J. ; N. Y., 1848. 24. The defendants, in their notice of special matter, under § 15 of the act of 1836, had given notice that one Bald- win had had jirior knowledge of the plaint ifTs invention before his patent therefor. On the trial, they called one Fry as a witness to prove that ItaLUjn had such prior kiiowled;;e. Tin- \vitiii>hl., 454, 4(»J. 28. J/chl, also, in the case of such .1 defective notice, that it w.as not coinpe- tent, with a view to show that the notice was sufliciently explicit and specific :ui(l thus allow the book to be read in evi- dence, to prove by experts. and sciciifilic men that they could, in seeking infor- mation as to the subject matter ol' tlie (iKSVMWs ISSl'K, AM) NOTU K, 11. S45 ^, wiiM NonoB Rn)uiMu>; what to UINTAIK. pliiinliir'H |>alt>iit, willitiut tlilliciilty flml lli<> |itvrtii>iii( |> rviul, uitli- iiiit 454, 40'i. j'.i. Nttr I'liii a |iiilili(i wmk ho read viH'cial rciuri'iiou t(» tlicni. ll>Ul.^ Ill* tlu' iilMiiititVn iiivohtion, tlio only iioiii-c nf wliit'li voliinii* \N :>» iriM ii in a H|iri i:il |ili>;i, mIiIi'Ii liail, liotitiv tlic trial, bc-fii olrickon out by llio court. //>< mtfnu QM that )tftt«>nl(Ml, or the iianio of till' p«>rNon or o\vin-r UMintX it nIioiiM hr j;iv«n ; tlii> iiaim- oftlifcity' or lr«>Huriii>i1 from the palcnt itHt'lt' llial the invciitinn \>* ni*\v, and it' a party kihmI woiiiil avail liinisi-lf ot'thu want ot'NUch uovt'lty, it is inciiin* [»;:. Ix'nt upon hini to provu it hy giviii-^ n no, A K*'"*''*'''' refcrrncc, in a iiotici' ptopt-r iiotico to the plaiiitill* to prrvorit trsiu'cial niatlor with the mncral issiir, Ninprisi Hidrmaii v. Lrinor^ MS, — to a voliiino, iii| ** Ure'n Dictionary of Arts, .ManiifacturoH, and Miiu'm," in wliii'li an invention liaH hct-n drscrili«M|, iH not siithcirnt, hut there niUHt Ix; a iiidc particnlai' referi'iiee to tlu' part re- lio.l (in, either l»y im^eH, titles, or otlier- wiso. Sil.ifii/ V. I'oote, 14 How., 221!. — CiUTis, .).; Su|.. ('t., \Hr,'2. ;}!. Nor eaii Hueli hook, nnth-r such a notice, bo referre ut' the previous use of a paleiiti'd thiiij; is designed to give the patentee the benefit of an exaniinatioii into the facts of the niipposetl prior iiso. f/,i,f. :J7. In \\h- seventh cin'Uii such n<»tico must specify t lie particular place of fiUeh prior use ; a refereneo merely to tho «'ounty in which hucIi prior use happen- ed is not suflleienl. Ifn'if. ;{H. Under the provision . f j^ 15 of the act of IHHO, a defendiint may, under the genenil i!*sue, und with notice .18 reipiired by that act, give any sipe(;ial matter in evidence, tending to prove that the patentee was not the original and first inventor <»r discoverer of tho thing patented, or a substantial or ma- terial part thereof claimed as new, or that it hail be( i deseribed in some pul)- lic work anterior to the 8up}>osed dis- covery by tho pati.'iitee, or had been in public use or on sale, with the consent and allowance of the patentee, beforo his apitlicatiou for a patent. Tnse v. Jfiintitiijdon, 23 I low., 7. — Cliffokd, J.; Sup. Ct., 1859. .•J!*. Hut whenever the defendant re- lies on the fact of a previous invention, or knowledge, or use, he must st.ito in ■i^k Wi^ m\ ^HS-ttaifc^- 340 (JKXKUAL ISSUK, AND NOTICE, C. WUkM •tr»:ri«i. fl.».*N ai.m>\» aiii k. ^4. i^". Mm iiiilir'c till* ntuni'N uml |il!iri>H of ri>Hi tit iici' of tli<>st> \\\\n liml hiii'li |iriiii' klloH lri|^t> of ill)' tiling, ttlld wllt'lU lilt' •null' IiikI Itt'iii iiMttil. /hiti.f 7t 40. No oriliT of court iit ticociiHnrjr to «>rititli> II (li't'irnlaiii to Mt'rvi* uikI flli' tlii> notirt' of nprciul uitlUiT rf<|uirt'i| in ){ lA of tlitt Hit (if 1H30. It U only ntu'f^ Htiry tliiit Hiit'li notii't* Ih> in writing, uml l)(> Ht'i'M'il iiiorr ihaii thirty ilayH lu-furc tilt' trial, /f'iii., 10, •♦I. Aii'l if a Hi-Mt notifi' ih ilufct'livi', or not Hiitllrit'iitly coiiiiiri'lii'iiNivc to tul- liiit till' pi'optT ilfft'iitit', till' tlcfi'inlaiil limy ii'wi oilit'r iiotirt's to niiit'il) kihIi tlt'fci't, or supply iho ilcfn'lfucy. J /ml., 10. 42. I'lult-r HUrli iiotict>, ilfpoHitioiis liiki'ii iM'fort' tilt' notice was jtcrvcd, as well as those taken aftei\v:iril, urc atl- miHoihle, provided the depositiotiH are iippiicaltle to I Ik; lutiltcrd thus put in iHsue. If>i(Ly 10. 41). Ill tlie Hcveiith circuit, in the no- tice ;;;iven of tliepri(U' use of a patented invention, it in necessary not only to Htato where and liy wh lit was ho used, lull Hiieh notice should ..iso set forth the name of the person who had kiiowledj^e of HU(;h use, and hy whom such fact is to bo proved. Jttdson v. Cop>\ MS. — LKAvirr, J. ; Ohio, iHdo. 44. Notice of tho time when the per- son possessed the knowledLfe or use of the invention is not reipiired l»y the act ; the name of the person, and of his place of residence, and the jilace where it has been used, are suftii-ieiit. J*/u'/lij)s v. J'affe, 21 How., 108. — Nklson, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1860. C. When Special Plkas allowaiii^. 1. The notice mentioned in the stat- ute is required only to be given when it In intended to olTer the n\ iai tnntit.r ill eviilenct* OM the (general ixNiu'. '|'||,, di'ti'iidant Im not obli<{i'd to piirmic t|,i, coiirMc. He may utill plead Mpvciulji and then the pica In tliti only nniic,. which the plaintill* can claim. Ainl ^ plea would not he defecti\e which i|i,| not atati* the place the notice required by |^ 1) of the ait of I70U ot any special matter he iiieaih to uso lit the trial. If ho hIiown ihat the p:itentee has failed in any of th,. prereipiisiles on which the aulhoritjt,, issue the patent is made to depcnil, hit defence is eomphtte. (Jnintv. /iuynuiiKl, (I IVt., '240. — MAitHilAl.l., Ch. J.; Sii),. Ct., lH:t2. :<. Ibit if ho BtickN to annul the ]int> cut, he must proceed in exact conform- ity to g (J of the uct of 17l);(. Iliiii, •J4il. 4. The defendant is permitted to pro- ceed aecordiii}? to JJ U, bui is not pro- hibited from proceediii}^ in the UHual manner, so far as respects his deftiKr, except that special matter may not lio j;iven in evidence on tho general i'smio imaiH-oinpaiiied by the notice which that section reipiires. Ibid., 247. 5. Instead of pleadinj; the fjoiipial issue, and j?ivin<;f notice of special mat- ter as uuthori/ed by the statute, tlu' di'- fendant may plead special pleas, settiiit; up tho matters of which he could givo notice. The right to plead the geiioral issue, and give notice, is an enlargeiiient of the defendant's mode of defence, but does not take away his right to plead (iOOl) N\ ILL OF IlirsiNKSM. .147 VNAT IB, AW raoraaTT iir. »|wM'ifilly. /'/tilltjn V. Cvmntin-k, 4 Mtl.«';»". ■'-'*■— ^'''•*:*^.'^ ; ^"1'. •"■*'» 0. lit nil action tor llio inlViiiijciiiciit ul' a |)ikl«'iil, llii> tt'rii|uiiti« |ili'ii)|t>i| iIm< ^'(•ncrul ioHiU', iumI ulHoiiiiiiu'ruitM M|K>«>iitl yU'.in, ami iiUo ^tivc iiotici* of Hpcciiil iicititr iiiiiliT d l.'^ of till' act of I Nail. Tilt* iii.'kttci-H Hct lorih ill tint N|t«> Kct forth in tlic noticr Hccoiii|ian}ing the general i^4NUl*, cannot he picail speci- ally as inalterH of tiefence. /AA/,, .MiH. [Ovurnilc.l, lM:\,fM.H I'J, l.t.j 8. Thero may, lio\vi'v«.»*, l"» ;,..•, iiit of ilefciiic not M|iccilic<| liy ^ l.'i, whiili iiiij^iit he H' t lip in i)ar of the action, by hpecial pica. ////(/., r»l)H. 0. The ilcfcnccH, niiMitionciI and al- lowed liy J5 15 of the act of 1h;ii), to In- given in evidcnet' with the general is- siii', hy way of notice, lu-etl not, how- over, ho niado in Hueh particular man- HIT, hut may aluo be net up hy special |.|i'as. SinUh v. AVy, 15 How., 1 U.— Ta.nky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ot., lH5a. 10. A defendant is not liinitcnn(/ Co., :) lllatcbf., 181. — 15ktt8, J.; So. N. v., 18.-, 4. 11. To an action for tho infringement of a patent brought by an assigneo of the patentee, tho defendant, M'ith the general issue, pleaded special pleas, not impeaching tho validity of the i)atent, or denying his use of the patented in- vention, but sotting up a license under the patentee paramount to the right of the plaintitl'; /A/*/, that xnch plea* did not aniMiiiit in the general i«Nue, luitl Nhoiild not be Htriekvii uut oil iiioiioii. //>U, IM'J. I'i. rinlor tho deciftioim of tho .Hii- preine Court, h'i'oitH v. Kiifun, H Wheat,, ftiM, iukI (ifintt V. liinjtnniiity ll I'et,, 'J 10, in aelioiiH at law for the infringi>« ment of It patent, ii defendant \* not limited in his defence to tlie plea of thu Ljeneral iMHiie, even if his del'cnee reintrt upon matters which the htatnle unlhor- izes to bi> given in evidence under ^ lA of the act of INIIU, but he may plead those particulars specially. //'/riiici[ilo of a machine, art or manufactinH', l)efore known or in use. If only in the form or proportions, it has not the merit of a discovery whi''h can entitle the party to a patent. '. - (ins V. I'Mton, Pet., 0. C, 342. — W .-.ti- iNiiTDX, J.; P.I., 1810. 10. A machine or improvement may be new, and the proper subject of a pat- ent, althoiiujh the parts of it were beio o known and in use. Ibid., 343. 11. Where an inventor makes an ad- dition or improvement to a combination of machinery, he must confine his pat- ent to the improvement ; if he takes a j)atent for the Avhole machine as im- prov^nl, not limiting it to the imi»rove- ment, it is void, because as so claimed, it is not his invention. Harrett v. Ifall, 1 Mas., 476.— Stoey, J.; Mass., 1818. 12. If an invention consist in a new combin.ation of machinery, or in im- provements upon an old machine, to produce an old effect, the patent should be for the combined machinery, or inx- provements on the old machine, .indnot for a mere mode or device for producing such effects, detached from the machin- ery. Ibid., 476. 13. The distinction between a ma- chine .and an improvement on a machine, or an improved machine, is too clear for them to be confounded together. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 516. — Mar- shall, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 14. If the same combinations existed before, in machines of the same nature, up to a certain point, and the party's invention consists in adding some neAv- machinery, or some improved mode of "'■'"■■ w^ ^.^. irim ■ 'mSsa^mH^ w '**^.J^7mttA^^mmHimLiJm ^ ^^ i^c^wSt ':"4i!^tei L^/' ttQtT i«^;9 »%( J/TShh nHK p '■•^Virf ^^dL^^ I^C, -.-^^^-nn 1 iduScnWi^nw xC <^^k' '"'■S!«i\l,i 'J ''^it^ 350 IMPROVEMKNTS, A. 7L V. ■ - I it WHAT l'ATKNTAIII,K; TO WHAT KXTKNT. Operating, to Iho old, tlio patent should 1)0 limited to Kueli improvement. /vV- ans V. £itton, 7 Wheat., 130. — Sxouv, J.; Sup. Ct. 1822. 1.'). If ail iiiiprovcmont is jiow and \iseful, and lias not been known or used hefbro, it constitutes an invention with- in the terms ami meaning of tlie pat- ent aets, and the inventor is entitled to a patent. Mtrle v. Sawyer, 4 Mas., 7. — Stouy, J.; IMass., 1825. 10. A machine, and an improvement 'on a machine, or an improved macliiiie, must not he confounded ; a grant of the exclusive use of an imi)rovement in a machine, principle, or process, is not a grant of the improvement only, but the improved machine : an improvement on a machine and an improved machine, are the same. Whitney v. EinmHt, Bald., 314.— Baldwin-, .T. ; Pa., 18;M. 17. If the same combination existed before, iij) to a certain ])oint, and the invention consists in adding some new machinery, in some improved mode of operation, or some new combination, the patent must be limited to the im- provement. Ibiil., 314. 18. A slight alteration in tlie struc- ture of a machine, or in the improve- ment of it, Avill not entitle an individu- al to a patont. There must be a sub- stantial difference in the principle, and the ai)i)lication of it, to constitute such an improvement as the law will protect. S)Hith V. Penrce, 2 McLean, 178. — Mc- Lkax, J.; Ohio, 1840. 1 9. An improvement, to entitle a per- son to a patent, must not only be new, but iiseful; it must bo a substantial, material improvement. ]\Ie»*e colorable or slight improvements cannot affect the rights of the original inventors. Street V. Silver, Brightly, 99, 100.— Rogers, J.; Pa., 1840. 20. If an improvement be made on an original invention, a patent may in obtained for such iinpro«eineiit. Uuta substaiili.il part of an original invention c;iniii)t bi- patented as an iiniiroveiiiout, Smith v. J'Jly, 5 McLean, 88.— MiLkan-, .!.; Ohio, 1849. 21. An improvement upon an old con- trivance, in order to be the sulijcct of sufficient imjiortance to supjiort a int- ent, must embody gome originality, and something substantial in the cli;in{,'e, producing a more useful effect and o|). eration. irall v. Wiles, 2 Blatchf., i>ijo. — Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1851. 22. In determining this (piestioii, tlic jury have a riglit to take into considcMii- tioii, in connection with the change, tlie result which has been produced ; le- cause the result, if greatly more benefi- cial than it was with the old contri- vance, reflects back, .and tends to char- .'icterize, to some degree, the impor- tance of the change. Ibid., 200. 23. In .an action of infriiigeniont, it was objected that the arrangenieiil ami combination of the plaintiff's iiiij)rovi'- ment was so simple and obvious, that it was not the subject of a psitent ; //tW, that novelty .and utility in the iniprovo- mcnt was all that the statute reqtiirtd as a condition to granting a jialmt. McCormick v. Seymour, 2 Blatchf., 243, 244.— Xelson, J.; iSr. Y., 1851. 24. A change of construction in a machine, which is only the result of practical experience in tlie use of siiili machine, is not, in law, an inii)rovoiuciit on it. Traccy v. Torrey, 2 Blatclif , 278. — Nki-son, J. ; N. Y., 1851. 25. An improvement of a macliiue, for which a patent may issue, may con- sist in the introduction of a new ele- ment into an old machine, so as to pro- duce new power or greater facility in .»•:.<•>% LMI'IIOVK.MKNTS, A. 351 WHAT patkntaiii.k; to what exiknt. '^.C' the ni>i>Ii*'''itii)u of power. li/mni v. lIolU'!(iy, ItJ lV»ii., y52. — Coii.TUK, .1.; Ta., 1«'^1- •jO. ScmblCt that iniprovcinciits iiiikU' l,v workiuon, working iimlor tho \n\y of nil invontor, and niiikini^ expi'riiiK'Tits urnler his dircotioiis, uro to l)c fonsider- (mI fur the credit and benefit of sncli in- ventor. Ooodi/eui- V. I>aj/, MS. — Dnii- EKsos, J. ; N. J., 1852. •27. An improvement on a combina- tion is tlio subject of a patent, but at the same time tho improvement cannot 1)0 used without the consent of the orii;- inal patentee. I'oster v. Jfoore. 1 Curt., 293.— CuUTis, J. ; Mass., 185'J. 28. One may discover an imjMove- ment in a process, irrespective of any jKiiticular form of madiinery. Corultuj \, Burden, 15 llow., 207. — Stouy, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 29. A patent for an improvement of a macliine, is the same as a patent for an improved machine. Fidtz, Kf jxirtc, MS. (App.Cas.)— MoKSKM., J.; D. C, 1H53. 'M. Improvement applied to niachine- rv is where a specific machine ah'eady exists, and an addition is made to pro- duce thi -^i ^kt^- 852 IMPIlOTlliBini, A. »>i *^.'"«t I now SHOULD BB BKT FOUTil. effort ill a <'ho!i|>('r or nioro expeditious niiimiiT, or an i-iitiroly m-w ofl't'ct, or an ettect ill some material respect supirior, llioiiLfli ill otlier respects Miiiiilar to that jirodiiced l>y tlie old inachiiic. J/lManf, J^V' parte, JMS, (Ajip. Cas.) — !Moksei,l, J.; i). C, 1857. 30. If a eliani^e introduced constitute a mechanical equivalent in reference to tlie means used hy another jiatentec and besides being such an equivuleiil, accom- j)lish('s some other advantages beyond tlie effect or purpose accomplished by the patentee, such further advantage may make it a patentable subject or an improvement upon tho former inven- tion. Ibid. 40. If a person invent a new mechan- ical device or arrangement, to be used in the place of a former device or ar- rangement, which was a part of a cer- tain 'combination, and which new device is independent of all other similar devi- ces, and is not to be used in conjunction with, or ill aid of, or in addition to, such old device, which made one of tho ele- ments of the old combination, he may have a patent for a combination contain- ing his new device or arrangement, in connection with the remaining parts of the old combination, as such combina- tion constitutes a new machine, and not an improvement merely on the machine containing the combination of the old elements. Potter v. Holland, MS. — Ingersoi.l, J.; Ct., 1858. 41. But if such new mechanical de- vice is but an improvement on the old or former one, and is to be used in con- junction with, or in aid of, or in addition to, the old one, then, it seems, he could only have a patent for his improvement, in that element of the combination, and not for the whole combination. Ibid. B. How SIIori.D UK SCT KoitTII. 1. The patentee must doscribc in [\{[\ and exact terms in what his invention consists; and if it bo an improvtnu.iit only upon an existing machine, In. should distinguish what is new and what is old, in his specification, so tliut it may clearly appear for what the tint- ent is granted. If, therefore, tlic do. scription .nixes up the old and tliu new and does not distinctly ascertain fur which in particular the patent is cliiiin- ed, it is void. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mjis, 188. — Story, J.; Mass., 1817. 2. It is sufficient, however, if wlmt is claimed as new appear with reasonalile certii'iity on tho face of the patent, cilhor exp ■^ly or by necessary imidication. Ibit it ought to appear with reasonable certainty; for it is not to be left to mi- nute inferences and conjectures as to what was previously known or un- known ; since the question is not what was before known, but what the pat- entee claims as neio. Ibid., 188. 3. If, however, the invention is de- scribed with such reasonable certainty as to distinguish the same from all things before known, but the specifica- tion is not in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science of which it is abrancli, or with wliich it is most nearly connect- ed, to make, compovmd, and use the same, this, under § 6 of the act of 1793, does not avoid the i)atent, unless the defective description or concealment has been made for the purpose of deceiving the public. Ibid., 188, 189. 4. If a patent be for an improved ma- chine, or for an improvement on a ma- chine (the terms meaning substantially the same), the patent must state in what the improvement specifically consists, wwii;, IMl'KOVEMENTS, I J. 889 now Hin)ii,i> UK SKT Kitmir. ami it must bo liiiiitctl to tlio iinprovc- iiii'iil. lidrrett v. J/ult, 1 Mas., 470. — jjroKV, J. ; Mass., Ihih. 5. A j^oiicral stati'inciit that the pat- cnteil articli' is in all irspi'cts, without statin}^ what these are, an improvement on an old article, is no speinfication at all. If>i(f-, -^'H. 0. Where a ])atent is for .an improve- ment the spccitication must descriho in full, clear, and exact terms whjit the impi'ovcinent is: 1st, to enable the j)ub- lic to enjoy the full benefit of the dis- covery when the monopoly is expired, by having it so described on record that it can he constructed, and 2d, to put every citizen on his t^uard, that he m.ay not through ignorance violate the law, by infringing the rights of the patentee. Hmtns V. Jlt'ttick, 3 Wash., 425, 420.— \VASiiiNi/(')% 4 Wash,, 7;). — WAHiiiN(iTON, J.; I'a., 1821. 10. A specification which mixes up the old and the new, but does not ex- plain what is the nature or limit of tho improvement, which the party claims, cannot be sustained. JiJi'K/is v. J'Jdtoii, 7 Wheat., 434. — Sroitv, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1822. 11. A party should describe Avhat his* improvement is, and limit hi.s ))atent to such improvement, .and if he does not his patent is defective. Ibid., 435. 12. When the specification does not describe the invention so as to show in what respect the plaint ift''s invention or improvement differs from what had been known or used by tho patent is void. Langdon v. De Groot, 1 Paine, 207. — Livingston, J.; N. Y., 1822. 13. If a patent be for an improve- ment, it should describe the thing pre- viously in use, so that it can bo clearly seen in what the improvement consists. Sullivan v. Hedjield, 1 Paine, 451. — Thompson, J.; N. Y., 1825. 14. A patent was taken for an imprO'Ve- ment in the mould board of ploughs ; Held, that a particular description' of former mould, boards was not necessary. A general reference, either in general terms Avhich are not untrue, or a refer- ence to a pai'ticular mould board com- monly known, accompanied by such a description of tho improvement as will enable a workmjin to distinguish what is new will be sufficient. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock., 309.— Marshal^ Ch. J.; Va., 1827. 4_ />i4^1 hM iiii 'I ;•» • :■ ■■ 'i ,'*;^J^ 9i ^^Mit •Smm ■• '-;^ife ■ I i i lAi ' ^'-^.l: ^^-m' ^ I 'J ^i\ i: ",>»•• *. 4 ■4,' Sut i:mi'R()Vkmf<:nts, n. IIUW HIIOULD IIB 8ICT roUTII. 16. The iniprovoiiu'rit piitciifcil must 1)0 the improvciiu'iil invt'iiliil. 'I'lu'pMt- cntoi' must show llii' oxti'iil ol" the im- ju'dvt'iiu'iit, K() that a person who ufKhT- HtaiulH (lie Niihjrct may know in wliat it conHists. Whit in y v. Etinndt, llahl., 314.— IIai.dwin, J.; I'a., imtl. 10. AVhi'ii ii patent is for an improve- meat in iv machiiu> ah'catly in uhc, the 8pecilication ner-d not deserihe the orij^- inal maehint', tmh'ss there is no otiier way in whleh it «'an he aseertained witli reasonahh^ eertainty in wliat the im- provemcnt eonsiHts, and liow it is to be applied. //iirDion v. Tit'nf, 22 Wend., ;M.— IJuoNsoN, J. ; N. Y., IX'M). 17. If the Kpeeilieation eontain such a deseription of the natnre of the in- vention and tlie manner in wliieh it is to be performed, as will enable persons of eonipetent skill, by followinjjf the directions, to praetiec the invention without the labor or expense of trial or ox})eriment, the patentee need not go further and deseribe the original ma- chine. 77>u/., 115. . 18. To secure the benefits of § of the act of 1837, and save a patent from becoming absolutely void, by reason of the patentee elainung more than he has invented, the sitecification must state in what the improvement consists. Peter- son V. Wuodc'fi, 3 3IcLean, 240. — ^Ic- Leax, J. ; Ohio, 1843. 19. In describing an improvement, the structure in detail of the entire and improved machine need not be given. It is only necessary to describe the im- provement, by showing the parts of which it consists, and the effects which it produces. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 Mc- Lean, 2G1.— McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1843. 20. In a patent for an improvement, it may not be necessary to describe the machine before it was improved, though if gives great»'r distinctness to do sm' hut it is essential th:it the part inipnivi'ij sliould lie HO distinctly stated as to It,' distinguisluMl from every other pint of tlio machine. It is not enough tliat the invention can he made apparent m, the trial, by a comparison of the new with the old. Jintokn v. Ilick/ivll, ;i McLean, 444. — McLkan, J.; Ohi,, 1844. 21. In a patent for an impntveuipiit, the patentci' should iu)t only desfiilM' the macliine, with all its parts, hut lie should distinguish what is new. Wlmt. ever is the jiarticuhu improvemeMl must be clearly stated ; both that the piiMi,. may know what he claims as new, aiid that parties may know what they are to defend against. Jfovey v. JStriritii, 3 Wood. & Mill., 25, 20.— WooDHUKV, J. ; Mass., 1840. 22. Where a patent was for an im- jirovement on an old and known tiling, as for the sid)stitution of double- jiiiitis in the pl.ace of spokes in a car wlieel, and the objection was made that tlie old wheel was not fully described, iM/, that it was sufficient for the patentee to refer in general terms to the old wlictl, as a spoke wheel, as that alforded nil the information necessary to a ]i('rsoii skilled in that department. 3l<(inj v. JiKjger^ 1 Blatchf., 380. — Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1848. 23. If the sjwcification includes as well the original discovery as the alleged improvement, and does not point out in what the improvement consists, the patent is void. Street v. Silver, iJriglil- ly, 101. — RoGEKS, J.; Pa., 1840. 24. Where a patent is for an iniprovo- ment on an old machine, if the whole of it, the old and the new, is described in the specification, the patentee must dis- tinguish what part he claims, or the pat- . ^ „a£l!;.S>iA -'^w. IMrUOVEMENTS, C. 3fi5 PATINT rOI i WHAT WtCUKIU BT. ,.iit will 1h' v<»'nl for atiiiii;,'uity. 117//- Urmtite v. /ieilhiytoii, M.S. — \Vii:s(».v, J.; Ohio, lH.-)0, •j,». If iho wlinl(> iictoirnic, ill its iiii- provo'l sliiti', Ih cliiiiiuul, tlitt piih'iil will l)C voiil for c'liiiiiiiiijj too much. Jf>i claim should cxcluile the old parts, am' claim only (he new, hy which the old were ad.-ipt- clI to tiie new use, prodiicinj.; the new result, riiillijm V. i'////c, 24 How., lUH. -Nelsox, J.; Sup. Ct., 1860. t!, Patkvtfor; what skcuuko hy ; CONSTUUcmoN OK. 1. If an inventor be not an inventor of the whole inaciruu', but only of an im|iroveinent thereof, and the patent is lor the whole maehine, the patent is too broad and is utterly void. Whittemore V. Cutlery 1 Gall., 479.— Sroicv, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. If an inventor obtain a patent for ail entire machine, when he is the inven- tor only of an improvement thereon, liis patent is too broad and therefore void. Odlarne v. Whikhijy 2 Gall., 53. — Stouy, .1., M.'iss., 1814. 3. If a ]jatont be taken out for .in en- tire machine, Avhen the invention con- sists only of an improvement on such machine, the whole patent is not void, but the patentee is not entitled to more than his improvement ; nor can lie make or use the ori<;inal discovery, nor pnmo» cute any person for iisin^ such ori^^inal discovery without cnj^rallin;^ on it the imptovemeiit invented by the p.atenteu. (iondyiiir V. jVntf/H'wa, 1 I'aine, 'M'2.— liiviMisToN, J.; Ct., 1H14. 4. The <,'r!int can only be for the dis- covery as recited in the patent and spe- cifu-ation. If the patent is for the whole of a machine, and the (liseovery was only of an improvement, the patent Ih void. J^'raim v. J^Jatoii, Pet., V. C, :t V2. — W,\HiiiN(iTo.\, J.; Ph., 1810. r*. If iinprov(unents be made upon an invention which has been pateiilt'd, by any person other than the inventor or patentee, the inventor of the orii^iiial tiling, and those elaiming under him, have no right to use the improvements without a license from the inventor thereof; nor can the inventor of such improvements, or luiy other person law- fully use the prineip.'il machine williout the license of the inventor thereof. arxi/ v.. /(lines, IVt., C. C. :301).— Wasii- iNre than the improvt- meiit described and claimed as new and any one who afterward discovers a method of accomplishing the saiiiu oli. ject, substantially and esseniinlly (\\{. fering from the one described, Las a right to nse it. (/Jieilli/ v. M,ji:ie, 15 How., 110.— Tanky, Ch. J.; ,S«p. Ct., 1863. 10. There may bo nn improvement iipniv«'iiii<' a (liiri'n'ht Ibrin or combination, iKMloriiiiiiK *''" «''>ino tunctioii. JAc- Cormit'k V. Talcott, 20 Mow., 40.^.— (iuiKK, J.; Slip. Ct., ls.-)7. 'jl. 'I'lie iiivi'iitor of a first Iniprovf- iiii'iit, caiiiioi iiiV(»kt' tlu' doi-trim! ofiin'' clKinii'aU'qiiivalents t«) suppri-ss all otli«'r inmrovonu'nts, wliich arc not niero col- (iriiMo invasions of tlio first. I/iid., 105. •j2. A more nddition to a patented in- vfiitioii, will not justify the nso of the iiivi'iition first patented. Coktnan v. /jVw'/-, MS.— Lkavht, J.; Ohio, iKr.l). •J,'). An iiiiprovenient on a machine jjivcs no right to uho the original, but lliu use of such original machine is an infniigeiiient, although with the iin- |irovt'iiients, the ni.-xchnio may be much more useful than it would be Avithout thorn. Howe v. Morton^ 13 Mo. Law Hep. — Si'RAOUK, J. ; Mass., 1800. INFRINGEMENT. A. Or CopYRioaT 357 B. Of Patents 1. General jirinciples as to 300 2. What held to amount to 365 3. What held not to amount to 370 4. Actions for, and Defences in 373 5. Evidence as to, and by whom de- cided 373 C. Of Tradk-Marks 373 A, Of Copyright. 1. The question as to the violation of a copyright by an unlawful sale of the books, as to which a copyright has been secured, is not aflTected by the fact that tuch books may have been printed by one who had an intcrent in nuoh copy. right, and a riglit to publish and hv\\ tluMii. //iiifson V. Piittcn^ I Hoot, 13.'J. — CiiiiAM ; Cf., I Th(». 12. 'I'lic plaint ilVf* had purchased of W. his copyright to vend and sell a certain work within the state of Cnimecticat ; (', also purchased of \\ . i\ like right for New York. ('. employed plaiiitilfs, who resided in C'onnecticut, to print for hitn a number of copies, which tiiey did, and dt'livercd in New York. The defendant bought some copies from C, and then brought them to Hartford, and sold them. 7A/(/, tluit such sale was against the st.'itiite, and the same as if C. had himself printed them. //>* '.■5-i r,„ Wf^l ■H -..'.txii ''^ ''^•^f^'Lg^ is» lNKKl> ii«>WH|iri|)fr, in which thi> nuthor |ia,| qiur thf woikn of tinotht'i* nr«' MKid, whfthii iH'itln'r lh«' author ni>r any other Ii:i,| it h«' by n hiMiplj' M'|»rint, or l»y incoi any f«»pyri>,'lit, Milhr \. )f''h'fi;,>i, \ poralinj; the whoU< or ii Iarj,'f portion Auht. Law Uc^., 204, 2or».— iuickin tlivrcof in Nome other worlt. Ihid,^ )9. ho.v, J.; I'a., iHiiO. 7. Tlu' inrorporatiifi of a treatise in ^ I'.'. To coiiMtitnto an Invasion ofcDpy. un cncyi'IopH'ilia \* just as nnnh a pira- cy upon a fopyri;;hf as if it were pul»- liHhcd in a win^He volnmc. I hid., li», H, In many casiJH of violation i if copy- right, the (pu'stioii may tinii upon tlu* p<*in(, not so mncli of tlie qnatitity, aH riirht/ir is not ntut'SMary that t|it> h|,„!,, of a Work shouhl In* <• ipiml, or i.\,ii n larj»o portion rcpared notes to it, some of ■which wtie not original; 8uch notes were copied and used by u Ruhsecpient editor of the same work : ITdd, that sn \\ tise was an infraction of tlic copyri;.:ht as to the notes, wliicli had Im-cii first collect! d together and arranged by the former editor. Ibid., 21. 11. Tf a copyright can be secured for a work Avlien the aiihor has printed it in a ni'WKpaper before lie has obtained a copyright, although with notice that ho had secured a copyright; query, whether, under siuh circumstances, one can be charged with nn infringement upon 8uch right if ho has in fact never Been or co]>icd from the book so entered and secured, or in any manner used it in his pu})licatitin, but lias reprinted tlie same matter, in part or whole, from such or the labors of the original author arc substantially, t" n injurious extent, ai>- propriated, that is siitiieient, in point if law, to constitute a piracy. Ihiil.^ n,-,. 14. The entirety of the <'opyright ii the property of tli author, and it is no defence that another has nppi'ii|»riatcil a part nil 1 not the whi i' of such jiroiur- ty. I hid., 110. 15. Nor docs it necessarily dopeml upon till (piantity talW- V(tte letters of Washington, and orii;!- nally published by Sparks, under a con- tract with the owners of (ho ori<;iiia: papers of Washington, Held, that tlio work of A was an invasion of thccoj' right of Mr. Sjjarks. Ibid., 103, Id, 108, 109, 118. 17. Inteutiou cannot be takcu into INFIUNUEMENT, A. 360 or itpfliniltYi WHAT OIWimTt;Ttai. ricw ill refiirvBoe to nn IniViiif^vuioiit «>(' a eo|>yrij(lit ; li'a copyi i'^lil Um Imh'II iii- vfttlt'il, wli«'tlior the piiri} kiU'W it wii- (■(.|i)iiK'liti'«l «»•' 1 11 it, ho in liable t«» tin- ptiiully. MiU'tt V, SiunoUiH, 1 NVtmt. Lrtw .lour., -'40.— HiciTH, J. ; X- V., \H. Tlir omission of a word, u liiu-, or |iimiKriHil» in lliu book, Jfco., piib- lisliiil ill violation of II copyi'ijj;ht, can- nut cliuii};!* it no uh tu avoid the statute. 7/;|./., '-'40. 19. A dofi-iidant may mIiow thai llio Wink copyrij^htcd was not orij^inal with thu ittitltnr, or liiat it wiin nil ublni'via- tiuii or alt«Talioii, and tlu; jury t-aii do- toriiiiiio wlii'tlicr it i.s calciilali'd to in iVin^^e the coi>yright or not. //'/•/., 240. 20. It in not Mnflh^li'iit, to conHtitiite a iiiracy of a copyrij^ht, to show that ono work may ha\o In-t'ii Hiiggestcd by an- ..thor, or that MOini! parts or jiagi's of it have rcsi'inblaiiceH, either in metliod, di'tiiils, or illuHt rations. It must be fur- tliLT sliown that siu-h rosi'mblancos an* HO cIdso, full, uniform, and striking, as to lead to thu condiision thai tho uno is n suhstuntial copy of the other, or main- ly borrowed from it. i^meraon v. Da- vies, u story, 7B7. — Sioiiv, J. ; Mass., 1845. iil. A copy is ouo tiling, an imitation or rcsetublaucc is anot her. Ibid., Y87, 788. 2'J. lu many cises it is a very nice f|msuoii, what degree of imitation con- stitutes an infringement of a copyriglit ill a particular wofk. Tbid., 788. 23. If the sim'litude can bo supposed to have arisen from accident, or neces- sarily from the nature of the subject, the defendant is not liable. Ibid., 791. M. The true test of [dr.icy or not is, wLeiher the defendant bus in fact used till) plnintitrtt wtirk, with cohiraltk all«>r lionn niid vnriutiuii guiM' the use lliereof; or whelhtT III* work ';» the result of his < ^n labor, skill, and ui«>' niu kinds of books, as dictionaries, ga/t.>ttuerH, grammais, maps, arithmutics, almanacs, cyclopio- tlias, itineraries, guide-books, and imi- lar publications, if the main design and execution are in reality novel and im- pri>\ ed, and not a inen^ cover for import* .nut piracies from others, Webhw Pow- ers, 2 Wood, it Mill., 512. — Wuouutuv, J. ; Mass., 1H47. JO. Where two Itooks >vero Home- wh;if similar in design and exeeuticm, and tlu line was to : oino extent copied from the first, but was smalhi and chciiper, and in many respects of a dif- ferent arrangement, ////r rAIHNf; ilKMKIIAI. I'MNCII'tM \H Til, ft ilrtnilt with n vl«*w tn iiinkc it U'** vx pt'iiMvc iiimI |i) i'iroiliilr Ktiioii^ mlilli'i'- «*iit I'likM of riniilfrM, rat tier tliitii Ih* u Hiil)Mtiiiii«> witli till* p*tiiiu< I'liiNM, it will It" III) itilViii^i'iiifiil 1)11 till* ('o|)\ri^til of till' pluiiilitVi. //, iiiul tliiit liy itii'iilal i:ilM>f \h ruitlirully iltiiit', il Im no ^rri)iiiii| for a |ii'om'fiiliiiii hy lliii owiii-r of a i'o|tyiij,'lil ol" tlii' |it-iiici|>.'il work. Hut il if otlii>rwi<«(< it' tlu* iilirii|<;iiu'iil or Niinilar work lie i>ol <)ial)li', or a tiuTt' Htii)Htitiit*>. /AAA, •VJO. 'JO. Till' iiiti'iit not to ill* ffiiilly of |iinu'y U not material, il'iniicli IniN Ih'cm iictiialty ciiiiittl aihl tlu* ik w work is a nuM'i* Niil)sruiili>. i'liit if litis li«> doiiht- i'lil, till' iiitfiit Mot to |illl'cr li-oiii anollirr, coNtraltlv or otli«>rwiMi>, for tin* HiiliHtati- tial pariK ot' lln' new work, may lie iin- l.ortaiit. /A/W., :)JI. :»(). Till' inrriiijittin'iit of a copyrij^lil iIooH not ilcpcihl so iiiiicli ii|Hin till' Ii'ii2:t!i of till' I'xlrarts as ii|toii tlu'ir value. >SVo/*y'/i /•,>/•.>*. v. Ifolfomhc, 4 M.Li'aii, :iOU.— .Mt LicAN, J.; Ohio, .'11. Till' intiMitioii with whii-h ex- tracts from a work an- math-, has no hi-ariiif; upon tlic (picstioii of violation. Till' impiiiy is, wlial rlU'ct must tlii) ex- tracts have upon tlie original work. If they render it less valiialilu by super- setliii;^ its use in any (h'L,M-i'e, the right of tlie author is infringeil ; ami it eaii be of no iinportaiiee to know with what intent this was «lone. //>/d tlio tli<)ii^|||« t'oueeplioiiM, inforiMiition, or dineovMr. iri/ic!j>len aa to. See also Aci <, II.; iNvicvrioN, E. 1. The general law deelari's that tlio ligli*. to a patent belongs to him who is till -st inventor, even before a pMlcnt is giantctl; therefore, any per>oii, wlio, knowing that another is the first invent- or, yet doubting whether that person will ever apply for a patent, piocccilH to construct a mnchine so invi'iilcil liy another, .nets at his peril, and with the full knowledge of the law, that a suliso- quent patent may cut him out of tlio use of the machine thus erected; a priori, where the party constructing knew that the inventor had obtained a patent, though afterw.ard declared ir valid, but under a subsequent act ; i:;^! *• m\. I\I'UIN t> >t*'i>l ri'^lit, iiikI il<'|)riv«* tli*' dVUH'i' of iIh' liiwfiil rrw.'inh of Itin tils- ciivi'iv. tSiiwin V. (iiiUily I rne\. WinAit i/,'d iiinifii,'iii:il inventor, or proti'ft an in- tVinf^rr. Ihtd., ty\, 6. It in not tlu^ duty of tlm nttoriHoni- tiiiKsiiiiiiT of I'alcnls, oroftlio Scrn'laiy of Stale (now Iiilriior) to (Iclt'rinini' \vli;it ri;4lits ai-«i conffiTt'd l»y pati-nts j,'niiitt'tl, or wliat will amount to a vio- lation of those ri^^ht^ "lifsc an' <|uon- tJDiiH to lio srfth'il ^ the courts anil jiiii H. Xui/rnr'n tjiine, I Opin., 570. — WiKT, Alty. (Jun. ; iwi'i. 0. Whoever oreets or uscwa |tatcntc(l iimcliitu', (Iocs it at his pffil. He takes ii|MiM hinisrif all the chancH'S of the ]iiitt'iit heiiii; orif»)tt, U Story, 11)4.— Stoky, J.; Mass., 1H4'2. 11. A mere colorahle or sli^^ht alter- ation of a ma(;hine, or a change in itd proportionH, gives no groimd for a pat- ent, nor can it slu'lter from the conse- (piences of at> infringement. The i.i- (piiry always is, whether the principle of the two ma(;hines is th(! same. lii'ooks V. liiikmll, '.\ McLean, 202.— MoLdan, J.; Ohio, 1843. 12. Where witnesses differ as to tho fact of infringement, the (piostion shoiihl he Htibmitted to ft jury, either by an action at law, or an issue directed by the court. Ibid., 202. 13. If the defendant cotistrnct and use a machine before the pliiintiflf ob- (#' I i«^W< n^.*'^! ^>«.^UU^ ,. H'Vj ■■m\ .. Wt'^' ki. I »-^^, ^cm.^ j^h. 302 INFRINGEMENT, B. 1. or I'ArEyr. qkneual pkincihi.ks as to. !1 t tixin liis patent, such construction or use will not be protect ed, if tlie niacliine was copied llfoni that of the }il.iintiir, unless he cn'scutecl to such construction or use. llov(\) V. Stevens, 1 "Wood, tt Wu)., ;i01 . — WooDiiiUY, J. ; Mass., 1 8 10. 14. The (piestion of inlVingement is one irrespective of motive. The «lc- fendanf may have infriniifed without in- tendinix, uv even knowing it ; hut he is not on that account the less tiie infringi'r. J'arkir v. J/nlnn', 1 "West. Law Jour., 420. — Kani:, .1. ; Pa., 1849. I,'). If a machine, constructed as de- pcribed in the patent, will accomplish the end practically and usefully in the ■\vay pointed out, the inventor is entitled to the ])r(itection gr.antcd hy the gov- ernment, and any one using the principle thus embodied is guilty of an infringe- ment, however he nuiy have perfected the machine by superior skill in the me- chanical arrangement and construction of the parts. J\irkhurst v. Kinsman, 1 Blatchf.,497.— Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1849. 16. The inipiiry as to infringement is whetlier the defendant has appropriated to his own use and for Iiis own beneiit the machine constructed and put in op- eration, or the thing invented by the patentees. This question is to be de- termined by reference to what was in existence at the time of the invention by the patentees. Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 Blatchf., 139.— Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 17. As to the (picstion of infringe- ment the inquiry is, whether the de- fendants' machine involves some new idea in its construction not to be found in the plaintiff's, or whether the plan used by the defendants is in substance the same as the plaintiff's, the differen- ces introduced being merely differences in things not material or important ; in other words, whether the defendants' plan is in substance and effect a ci)l(ir. able evasioM of the ))laintiff's rij,'lits ur is new and hubstantially a dirt'ereiu thing. McCiyrmick v. Scynivur, •: r.Iatchf., 245, 240.— -Nelson, J.; x' Y., 1851. 1 8. If the defendants liave taken the same i)lan and applied it to the same purjiose, it is in substance the same tliiiiL' although they may have varied Uic mode of construction. It is then only a mechanical ecpiivalent, which, however meritorious and creditable to the me- chanic, is not invention. //>/(/., 248. 19. In examining a machine to ascer- tain whether or not it is an inlVingenienl of another, the similarity or dissiniiluri- ty of ihc mechanical constructii)ii isiua necessarily conclusive or connullitia, The structure may be very similar, hut the i>rincii)le, operation, and result, be very dirt'erent ; or the structure and np- pearance may be very differ"nt, and yti the principle be iu reality the .same, Blanchard v. Beers, 2 Blatchf., 410, 418.— Nelson, J. ; Ct., 1852. 20. No person can appropriate llio benefit of the new ideas Avhich another has originated and put into practical use, because he may have been enablotl, by sui^crior mechanical skill, to enihody them in a form diff«'rent in appearance, or different in reality. Although he may not have preserved the exterior appearance of the previous machine, he may have appropriated the ideas which give to it all its value. Ibid., 418. 21. Whenever a defendant sets u}) that he has substantially departed from an existing machine, so as to avoid the consequence of an infringement, he must show that his departure has been sucli as involves invention, and not mere mechanical skill. There nmst be miml and inventive genius involved iu it, and 'r*t INFKINdEMENT, IJ. 1. 803 or I'ATKNT. OKNKRAL ri(l.NCIl>I.l!:8 A8 TO. not the mere skill of the workman. Jbid., J 20. U'J. Ih cxamiiiiiifif questions of iden- tity :ii»'l infringement, it ia to bo first ascertiiinecl wherein consists the sub- ptantial peculiarity which distinguishes the art or invention patented. Who- ever adopts or appropriates such dis- tinctive jteculiarity or principle without license of the patentee, ai)propriates the invention, and infrinujes the j)atent, if the speeilication l)e correctly «lra\vn. Goodyi'itr v. Day, MlL -(.Juiku, J. ; N. J., IHJii. 2;t. It is no juntiiication of the in- fihij;o"ient of a renewed patent, that the infringer had stolen and used the invention Avith impunity before the i)at- ent was amended. § 7 of the act of 1839, gives no j)rotection to those who may have seized upon an invention or discovery disclosed in a i)atont, whose Bpecilieation may happen to be defect- ive or insiiflicient. Ihid. 24. On a bill tiled for an infringement of a patent, and for an injunction, if the defendants refuse to allow the plaintiffs to examine the machines used by them, the court will ori^cr the defendants to run such macliiiu"* in the presence of some expert, and that the ex])ert be al- lowed to bring into court specimens of the work jtroduced by such machines. Sloat v. Patten, 24 Jour. Fr. Inst., 3d Scr., 2;].— Kane, J.; Pa., 1852. 25. No person can take the benefit of a patentee's discovery for the pro- duction of a new manufacture, and by varying or improving the mode or pro- cess of its production, rob the patentee of bis franchise. Goodyear v. 27ie Rail- roads, 2 Wall., Jr., 361.— Griek, J. ; N. J., 185;$. 2G. AVhether the defendant lias con- Btructed, used, or sold the thing pat- ented to tlu! plaintitVs, is a question of fact for the Jury. Winaitt* v. Denmead, ir> How., :k<8. — CuitTis, J.; Sup. Ct., IS.') 3. 27. It is a familiar rule that to copy the principle or mode of operation de- scrilied in a patent, is an infringement, .'dl hough such cojiy shoidd be totally unlike the original hi form or propor- tions. Ihid., 312. 28. A (pu'stion of infringement is one of fact, which it is the province of a jury to decide. liich v. Jjippincott, 20 .Tour. Kr. Inst., 3d Ser., 14. — (iitiKU, J.; I'a., 18.53. 2!). The substitution and use of one power, us electricity, in the place of an- other, as hand power, docs not make the m.'U'hine ditteront, or |»revent its being an infringement. Cr. r^., ■i I L*- I . "'t'- ' «»" ^P- '*»ii ^SC?i>> 304 infiiixgemp:xt, b. i. OF PATENT. (IKXEKAI. PIIINCIPLES AH TO gc'iioral use are uiKlerstootl or not by tlie publio at lar^fo, or had been used by many ; it is suttleient to show the public liad free means of access to it, and to employ it, and the law then presumes it was well known and in public use. Smith V. IligginSy MS. — Jiiorrs, J. ; N. Y., \mi. 2'A. If the thing used by a defend- ant corresponds substantially with that known and in use before the discovery of the patentee, or described in printed Avorks, then his acts are no infringement of any right of a patentee ; and if the thing used liy the defendants and lliat patented to the plaintiff, are sub; t'n- tially alike, the question of infringement will still depend tipon tlie further in- quiry whether the patentee was the first and origin-il discoverer of the patented invention. Ibid. 34. If the patentee be an original in- ventor of a machine or th'Uf- ;, no has the ritrhf to treat as iiilrincrers all who make a like invention, operati;- , on the same l)rinciples, and performing the same ftmctions by analogous means or equiv- alent combinations, ';ven though the in- fringing machine may be an improve- ment on the o/iginal .aid patented one. JfcConnick v. Talcotf, 20 How., 405.— GiiiKR, J.; Sni). Ct., 1857. 35. But if his invention be but an improvement on a known machine, he cannot treat another as an infringer Avho lias improved the original macliine by using a diflferent form or combination, performing the same function. Tlie in- ventor of a first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of mechanical cquiv- .alents to suppress all other improve- ments which are not mere colorable in- vasions. Ibid., 405. 30. The question of infringement is one for the jury. The true point is, have the defendants used (he invention of the plaiiitiif, or something siil)st!iii- tially like it? Do the two structiU'es opir. ate ui»on the same principle ? Are thev substantially the same ? Hell v. l),i/c iels, MS. — Lkavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1858. 37. An unpatented invention is not property, nor the subject of exclusive ownership, but is free to the use of all persons, in whatever way they may come to the knowledge of it. Shrceve v. Utiited /StaieSf MS. — Loiung, J.; Ct. Claims, 1859. 38. In determining questions of in- friiigement, the jury are not to judgu about t*iniilarities or difiereiic 's by the names of things ; but are to look to the machines, or their several devices or elements, in tiie light of what they do, or what office or function they porilniii, and liow they perform it ; and to fiml that a thing is substantially the same as another, if it perform substantially the same function or office, in the same way, to attain the same result ; and that things are substantially diffiirent when they j>erform different duties, or in a dilferent Avay, or produce a different re- sult. Cahoon v. liing, MS. — Cliffoed, J.; Me., 1859. 39. For the same reason, they are not to judg( about similarities or differ- ences merely because things .are appar- ently the same, or a different shape or form ; but the true test of similarity or difference is the same in regard to sli.ape or form as in regard to names ; in both cases they are to look at the mode of operation, or the way the parts work, and at the result as well as the means by which the result is attained. Ibid. 40. Tlie question of infringement of a patent is exclusively a question for the jury. Judsony. Cc>/;c, MS. — Lkav- itt J.; Ohio, 1800. !!»'■ 'f!;.,. '^^StU, INFKINGEMENT, B. 2. .165 ■wC, OF PATENT. WHAT UAB BEKK IIKI.I) TO AMOUNT TO. 2. What has been held to amount to. See also CoMniNAiiox, I?. ; CoJiro- 8ITI0N uF Matiku, C. ; Dksiuv. 1. The mmrf of a tiling invented by aniitlicr, !UhI secured by patent, is an dilViict.', and it m.-ikcs no dilU'rcncc that the tl.ini? or nmchino was made or orcct- iiil prior to the issuing of the ])atent. Evan»\. Weiss, 2 Wash.,;i44,— Wasii- LVUTON, J.; Pa., 1800. 2. The making ot* a machine fit for use, and with a design to use it for prof- it, is an infringement of a patent-right, for which an action Avill lie, even if there is no user iind no actual dam.ige. Whit- temore \. Cutter, 1 Gall, 432, 433.— Sro- uy, J.; Mass., 1813. 3. Thougli as a general rule a p.itont covers only the improvement i)rccisely described, and is not violated unless the dcfcnilant make use of the precise thing (It'scribcil in the patent, yet if the imi- tation be so nearly exact as to satisfy tilt' jury (hat the imitator attempted to copy the model, and to make some al- most imperceptible variation, for the imrjiosc of evading the right of the pat- entee, this will be considered a fraiid upon the law, and such sligh' variation be disregarded. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock., 309. — Marshall, Ch. J. ; Ya., 1827. 4. If the machine used by the de- fendants, in its structure and operation, is substantially the same with the plain- tiff's invention as patented, though dif- ferent somewhat in form and arrange- ment, it is an infringement of his patent. Wyeth v. Intone, 1 Story, 280. — Story, J. ; Mass., 1840. 5. And where a patent embraces di- vers distinct and independent inventions or machines, but each auxiliary or con- ducive to the accomplislnncnt of the same conunon or general end, if one of such invcniions or miu'Iiines is wrimg- fu!iyused,it is a violation of the patent. Ihiil, 291, 202. (J. .Making, using, or selling a patent- ed niaehinc, is an infringement . Jlrcoka v. lUcknell, 3 McLean, 202.— McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1843. 7. No prior use of a defective patent can authorize the use of the invention after the emanation of an amended pat- ent, mider § 3 of the act of 1832, or g 13 of the act of 1830, which made no materi.'d change in the law. Sfi»ij>son v. West Ches. It. R. Co., 4 How., 40 J— McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1845. 8. Any person iisuig an invention protected b} a renewed patent, subse- (\\nn\t to the date of the .'ict of 1830 (July 4), is guilty of an hifrhigement, however long he may have used the same after the date of the defective and surrendered patent. Ibid.,40d. 9. It is an infringement of a patent- right to make the thing patented, even though the j)erson actnally making was employed by others to do the work. Jiryce v. Bair, 3 McLean, 583. — Mc- Lean, J.; Mich., 1845. 10. "Where a patent embraces several machines, the Avrongful use of either separate machine is a violation of the patent, pro tanto. Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatehf., 8.— Betts, J.; N. Y., 1845. 11. If a machine, as made by a de- fendant, was not an infraction of the plaintiff's patent, the alteration of it by a third party Avill not make the defend- ant liable. But if the machine as made by the defendant was intended by hira to operate in such a way as to violate the plaintiff's patent, and has in fact so operated, he is guilty of an infringement, "^C ' -i:^'^a ■*»^t >i. I ^ ! 866 lNKI{I\(iKMKNT, B. 2. or I'ATicsT. wiur has dkk.v iikld to auoum' to. iiotwitlistaniliii;^ iho iii^'iiuity willi Avliii'li 111' may liavc Hoii^ht to (list^iiisc his wruii^. Kiiiij/it v. G'nrit, Mir. I'at. Oft'., l;)3.— Kank, J. ; I'a., IHiii. 12. To iiifriiif^o a patcnt-rij^ht, it is liot lU'Ci'ssary tliat the tiling patciitcd bIiokM be acUnili'tl in every particMilar; if the patent is adopted substantially by the defendants, they are guilty of an infringement. Jioot v. Jlall, 4 MeLean, IHO.— JNIcLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1H4(5. 13. If a defendant lias arranged his maehinery on the «ame prineiple as claimed by the plaintitf, he is guilty of infringement. It is not essential that it shoidd be exactly similar in form, but it must work on the Siune prineiple. Parker \. Ilitworth^ 4 3IeLeaii, 373. — McLkax, J.; 111., 1K48. 14. The plaintiff''s invention and pat- ent was for a scpieezer, .so called, for converting puddlers' balls into blooms, and rolled the balls between reciprocat- ing tables or plates, or between a re- volving cylinder and a stationary curv- ed segmental trough with stationary flanges. The defendant's machine com- ])ressed the b.ill between a rotating cam and two small rotating cylinders be- neath it; Held, that plaintilf's patent was for a new process, mode, or method of converting puddlers' balls into blooms by continuous ]>rcssure and rotation between convergitig surfaces, and that the defendant's machine was an infringe- ment upon it, if it converted such balls into blooms by continuous i)ressure and rotation between converging surfaces, although its mechanical construction and action might be different. Burden v. Corninff, MS. — Conkung, J. ; N, Y., 1850. 15. If a person uses the invention of a patentee, he infringes whatever he may add to it, or with whatever ro ' invent iou h(! connects it. liriokn v. Flslxc, MS. — Sn:A(ii K, J.; Mass., iy.-]_ l(i. Where a patentee of iin improve- •nent in eidti»i;*orH, claimed "the ar- rangement of the teeth in two rows, in combination with a jiair of wheels hav- ing their treads in a line midway be- tween the jioints of the two rows of teeth, substantially as described," aiwl the speeificatit)!! described the teeth as seven in number, arranged in two straight rows, three in one row and four in another, the points of the three being in front <>f the line of the wheels, and the points wf the four behind siuli line, and the tread of the wheels hein" placed midway between the rows of the teeth to resist any tendeney of either row of teeth to cut too deoj), and the tread of the wheels between them acting as a fulcrum, so as to re- lieve the team of any strain arising; from either row of the teeth runniiii,' Loo low or too shallow, and by wliich arrangement also the use of guidinij handles, or of four wheels, could be dis- pensed Avith ; and the defendant's ma- chine used but two wheels, and no guiding handles, and had also seven teeth, three in front of the wheels and four behind, but the middle tooth of the forward three was moved forward of the others, and the two middk' toetli of the back row Avere placed behind the others, so that the two rows Avere not straight, and the axle of the Avbuels M'as thrown forward, so that the tread of the Avhecls was not midway between the rows of the teeth, by Avhich strain on the team Avas further reduced ; IMd, that the defendant's machine Avas an iii- fringeru-i't wvion the plaintiff's, as it \v :/\ the i[)ii;'U:,ii and substance of p;;ur.cir'« io venison. And Avas not even au iiiivri \ oiiU'iitj u. j' was only the re- f I be (lis- ml's ma- and no so Ht'veii loi'ls ami tooth of forward dL> tofth H'liind tl>e were not ;i,:els was troad of between icli strain cd ; Ildd, was au in- tV's, as it tance of not even ly the re- inki{IX(;kmknt, u. 2. no7 or PITKNT. WHAT IIAH nKEN IIKI.D TO AifOUST TO. l,ilt «»f practieal oxporit'iico in tlio uho of jtlaintitV'H iiiacbiiio, and iiivolvotl no iuventloii. 2hi<'i'!/\. loirey, 2 IMatclif., •J77, 27H.— Nki.so.v, J.; N. V., 1h')1. 17. In an action for an infringonient of tho Haino patent, rofcrred to lant above, whore the dofondant's inachiiic wa^ like that of Torrey, t-xoopt tliat (he midille tooth of tho forward threo was set back, ho that two teeth were forward of tho whools and iivc. were back, /It'ldi that defendant's machine was an infrinj^enient. (JlhimhfHhi. v. Gaimn, 2 IJbitohf., 270 (nolo.)— Nut.- 8ox,J.; N. Y., 1851. 18. If !i niaehino is oapabbf of por- formiiig several fnnel ions, as 1 llancliard's maiiiine for turnint; irrof^ubir forms, and II person (lonstrnct a nnndiino to perform but one of sudi funetions, as tho turn- ini,' of waj^on spokes, it is an infriiiire- ment. JiUinchard v. licers, 2 Bhitehf., 415.— Nklson, J, ; C't., 1H52. 19. Tho siu'o test, and tlio one tlio jury should bo gnided by in all cases, is, whether or not tho defendant's ma- oliino (whatever may bo its form or me- LJianieal construction), has incorporated within it the principle, or the combina- tion, or the novel ideas which constitute tlie imiirovonu'nt to bo foimd in tho jiluiiitilV's machine. If it does, tlien, no matter what may be its mechanical construction, or its form, it is an in- fringement. Tbkl.^ '110. 20. Tlie plaintilV's i)atent was for the curing of caoutchouc or india-rubber by subjecting it to the action of a high de- gree of artificial heat. The defendants set up the defence that tlie rubber made liy them was made by a process in wliich steam and not heat was tlie chief ngciit ; //(;,'(/, that the plaintitl" claimed the vuU-ani/.ation of rubber and sulphur by uriilicial heat, however produced, and th.'it the use of stoam in the placo of boated air was an infringement ol bis patent, (laoift/inr \. Tlif /i'lilntaif, 2 Wall., Jr., ;i.')8, ;101, .'t02. — (JitiiiU, J.; N. J., 1H5:J. 21. In an action for infringoment up- on Wells' |iatoiit fur making hat lH»dies, th(! defendants in their machine; divided the tunmd or chand)er into which tho fibres of the fur were thrown, ami used a perforated cone of wire gauze, of larger o|)eiiings than Wells', and put !i liner one of grass cloth over it, and used a motallio picker instead of tho hair brush to throw the fibres of tho fur into the (di.ainber, and also, instead of innnersing tho bat formed on tho cono into warm water to harden it so th.'it it co\ild be removed, dischargofl jets of steam upon tho bat during tho process of formation ; Ifelif, on an applic.'itioii for an injinu'tion, that tho machine of the defendants, .md their jjrocess of making tho hat body, was substantially like that of the complainants, the :is- .signees of Wells, and that they were en- titled to an injunction. St. Jofm \ . P ren- tlss, IMS.— Nklkox, J. ; N. Y., 18.')3. 22. To constitute an infrinuiinent, tho thing used liy tho defendant must be such as substantially to end)ody the patentee's mode of operation, and there- by attain the same kind of result as was reached by his invention. It is not ne- cessary that tho defendant should em- ploy tho plaint ilf's invention to as good advant.age as he employed it, or that tho result should bo precisely the same in degree ; but it must be the same in kind. Winans v. JJcNmead, 15 How., 344.— Cl'RTIS, J. ; Sup. Ct, 1853. 23. Where a ])atcnt Avas granted for constructing the body f)f a railroad car in the form of the frustum of a cone, and the claim was fur makinij it in such S • ft 'pf^* u. ^wwl"^^ *" Vjfa^i w iw v"'***'."* ^%^WwV^^^ ■■-"'*a'^X.V^^i m \m ' 1 - 1 ii'i . i ,i i i ill i /• ■"■•7 ^yi^Wk^^ . 4' / ■ I i 1 l't5('^, ^t^*"" >t«'V^.-3 ^^'^. rfts ) 4 U* **- 141' III § \i'- 308 1NKUIN(JKMKNT, 11. 2. or PATENT. WHAT HAS BEEN D TO AMOUNT TO. form wlu'i't'hy cortain spt'ciruMl advan- tair<'« were sccmtMl, ;iii(l a new ami ii>;(' fill ri'siilt |)i«i(Jiic('(|, ami tlii' ik-li-iidaiits coiistnictt'd tlu! body of tlicir car ortitf/- onaf, tlic! I'lfect of which was, how- ever, flic saiiu' as wlii'ii iii.'idc circular, as dt'sciiltcd in the jtlaiiiliirs jiatcnt; J/chf, that it was an iidriiij^cnu'iit upon ]ilaiiiliirs patt'ut, and that tlu; plaintirt"s ]»atcnt, thouj^hdcscrihiiii:; only the form of a frusiiiin of a cone, einhraced every Kuch variation of fjrin as substinitially embodied his modo of operation, and thereby attained tlie same result. I/)i(l., 341-;i44. 24. Where a particular geometrical form is nlone capable of embodying a patentee's inveirion, if the form is not used the invention is not ( opied, and there is no infringeincnt ; otiurwise. •where that form may be the l)est, but other forms may and do embody the invention. I/>id., 343. 25. An infringement takes place when- ever a i)arty avails himself of the inven- tion of a patentee, without such a va- riation as will constitute a new discov- ery, liich V. Lippincott^ 20 Jctur. Fr. Inst., 3d Ser., 4.— Grikr, J.; Ta., 1853, 26. An infringement consists hi con- structing a machine, or making a com- l)ound substantially in the same mode as that for which the patent has been ol)- tained. Allen v. Hunter, G McLean, 311.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1855. 27. An unsubstantial or colorable al- teration in a machine or a compound, as where they are formed on the same prin- ciple, though varied in form; or where the ingredients are the same, but com- bined in a different mode, or there is a substitute of one ingredient, having the same qualities and producing the same result, is an infringement. Il>id.,31S mcchanJfRl Btruclure, which pro.lucuH no lu'w or nial«'rially improved result is not the subject of a patent, and i* an itifringement of a patent. Srass., IH55. 29. Mere tornuii changes will imt evai. ft patent. Sickles v. Jiordin, 3 Ulatcht'. 641. — Nklson, J.; N.Y., 1850. 30. According to the |)atent law if the machine complained of involves ,miI,. stantial identity with the one jtatcntcd it cannot bo upheld. Ihid.^ 541. 31. If the invention of a i)ateiitec V a machine, it will be infringed !»• machine which incorporates in its strn ture and operation the substance of (lie invention ; that is, by an arrangemont which performs the same service or pro- duces the same effect in the same way, or suhstautially so. Ibid., 541. 32. The identify that is to be looked to, in an action of ifjfringemont, respern that which constitutes the essence of the invention, namely, the appli' utiuii of the principle. If the mode adojited by the defendant shows that the principle admits of the same application in a va- riety of forms, or by a variety of appa- ratus, -icli mode is a piracy of the in- vention. Whitemiute v. lieddingtvn, MS.— Wir-sox, J.; Oliio, 1856. 33. But if the defendant has adopted variations which show that the apjili- cation of the principle is varied, that some other law, or rule of practice or science, is made to take the jilaefe if that which the patentee claims as the essence of his invention, then there is no infringement. Ibid. 34. If a machine is constructed so as to conform in all respects to the de- scription in a patent, except as to one particular, or as to one motion and ef- 28. A cliange of form merely, or of | feet, yet ie so constructed and Ixtemkcl I^w* INFKINCJKMKNT, H. 2. 300 or PATRNT. WHAT IIA> BKKN IIKMI TO AMOUNT TU. C.._^ aJoptfil ieJ, that actice or \)h\c(> of lis as the there 13 tod so as the de- ls to one and ef- intended as t(» ol'tain that motion or cfli-ct in tho \\y,\iH' 'if tlic iiiachini', by tht; action or wcariii.i,' <'t t''t' I'l'its, and it ia ho oIi- taiiicd, it is ii vi<)hili prhu'i- «,/,■ is worth any thiiit', no tn«'rc evasion sliutild ho countenanced. Perfect iden- tity is not required to deinonsfrafe an ii,tViiii,'cnicnt of principle. /'<'i/" v. Jurry, M'"*- — Wimvinh, J. ; Mich., 1857. ;i"». If a licensee iiso the ihinuf pat- ented lieyond the limits of the license or grant, or in a way not authorized thereby, then there is a violation of the iii.'li(s sccinx'il to the patentee. JinlHitii (f- Ho'iiiijiur V. Union Rub. Co., \ IJIiitohf. Inckusoi.i., J.; N. Y., 1857. ,'jtj. It is an infrinyement, if the dc- fondiiits use tlie means secured by the |il:iiiitiiV's patent, althongh they may Iiave uscil anotlu'r di'vice, not ])atented to the plaintitV. WaUrhxry lint»a do. \\N. r.«£- //. Jirasn Co., MS.— IxiiKU- soix, J.; N. Y., 1H58. 37. To constitute an infrinj^cment, it is not necessary that the defendant's macliino should be exactly like the plaintiff's, Itut it is an infringement if his til vice is substantially like that of the jjiauitifTs. Ibid. 38. It is none the less an infringement of a patent, because something is added tu the means patented, even though the nhject or result to l)e secured by such other means in connection, is better ac- complished. Twlay V. iVbr. <£' Wore. R. R. Co., MS. — Inokrsoll, J. ; Ct., 1858. 39. Where a patent for improvements in the manner of supporting the bodies of railroad cars, olt ; yA7ment should be the same to the eye, or in point of fact. If they embody tlie ideas of the jiatentee, and the machhiery of the de- fendant operates by sueli adojition and appropriation, then, though the arrange- ment may be apparontly difTi rent, in reality and in judgment of law, an in- fringement exists. Smith v. Iligyins., MS.~Nei.son, J.; N. Y. 185G. 41. If a defendant uses th.at Avliich belongs to another, he is resjionsible, although he may have added something of his own. It is an infringement, whatever else he msty use. Johnson v. Root, MS. — Spragik, J.; Mass., 1858. 42. In the absence of any explana- tion or suggestion t) the contrary, it will be inferred that the use of machin- ery constructed according to the sjieci- fication of a patent is without the li- cense or consent of the patentee ; and such use will make a imma facie case lU' ;r^ h:^, "*"' vy^ ._^-^— ^^M '^^m^- 7 ^,^- ft.i n ''»t,. \^1 «i»'^ ^•. i* Vk"^. '^•^ 370 TNM'IfFXfJKMKXT, K 9. or PATKNT. WHAT HAN IIKKM lll'XI) NOT TO AMOUNT TO. of infriii^^cmctif. C/ift^i-f v. Png. Jldt, Co., '2'1 How., 'J22. — CMtKoUh, J.; Slip. Ct., 1830. 4."). It Ih nti ijifriiij;«'in<>iit if n ihthou hiiH UNcil :i |i;it»'iit('(''s iiii|irov('iiu'nts or (lt>vi<'i>s 8iilist.'Uili:ill}' the same, in wliicli tho Hninu })i'iiici|ilos arc l>r<)Uj^lit into requisition, or in other words, wliicli arc Jililvc ill tlitir principle of oper.'itioii. ColiUKf)! V. J^iisor, M.S. — J.KAvriT, J.; Oliio, 1H50. 44. To constitute an iiifrintjetnent, the thin;.' used must lie so near that set forth in tlie patent as Kuhstantially to einhody the patentee's niude of oper.'i- tion, niul thereby attain the Haiiio kind of result as was reached Ity liis inven- tion. W/iipplt! V. Mhlillisix Co., MS. — Si'RA(iLK, J.; .Alass., \Hr,f). 48. An improvement on a m.-ichine gives no right to use the original, but tho use of such original ni:icliiiie is an infriiigenu'iit, although with tho iin- pro\ enu'iits the niai^'hiiie maybe much more useful than it would be without them, //owe \. Morfo/i ,' l;{ Mo. Law I{op.,7l-7:i.— Si'UA(;rK,.T.;Mass., 1800. 3. W/iat /laa been Jield not to amount to. 1. The maliiiig of a ])atented machine merely for philosophical experiments, or f(tr the purpose of ascertaining the suf- ficiency of the machine to produce its described effects, is not an infringement on the patentee's rights. Whiftemorc V. Cutter, 1 Gall., 432.— Story, J.; lyfass., 1813. 2. The levy and sale, under an exe- cution, of the ninteriuh of patented ar- ticles, as the materials of machines for cutting brad-nails, is not such it sale under the patent acts as makes tlie sher- riff liable to an infringement of the patent -right. To constitute such an in- fringement, the sale must be not (.f i!,,. materials of a maihiiH', either M-paiui,. or combined, butof ii complete inacliiiH. with the right, express or implied, dt" using the same in the manner wenircd by the p.atent. It must be a toriiniis sale, not for tlie purpose! ctf nierelv dt ■ priviiig llie owner of the materials, Imt of the use and lu'iiefit of his patent. Snirin v. (inilif, 1 (Jail., 487.— Srouv, .1.; Mass., 1HI3. 3, If an invention is an improveincnt in \\\c pri)triple of a machine for wliich a patent has been granted, it is not a vioIati.)ii of the p.'itent. /'arlc v. //itti 3 Wash., 108.— Wahiiinovon, J.; I';,., 1813. 4. A contract to purchase ariidcs maiiufacturofl in viol.-itionof a patent is not of itself an infringement of s«iic|i |i;it. out. Ju'plhiger v. J)e Vouny, 10 Wheat., 305. — WASiiivciTON, J.; Sup, C"t., iS25. 6. The e.vclusive grant in a patent is the construction and use of the tliin;,' patented. Tho patent law protects the thing p.atented, and not tho j)ro(lu('t. The right of an assignee of a pati'iil right for a particular district, is not in- fringetl upon by the s.ale within siicli distri(^t of tho products of the same patent-right, manufactured by a parly holding an interest in the same patent in another district. lioyd\. Jlrowii,?, McLean, 296, 297.- McLean, J.; Ohio, 1843. 0. Whether if the manufacturer in the second district was actuailv c iga/ed in selling such articles within the dii!- trict held by the other, it would not be a violation of the right of siicli Mtlur person ; query. Ibid., 206. 7. The Side of the thing mamifactured, or the product of a patented machine, is not a violation of the exclusive right to use, construct, or sell the macliine. INFUIXOEMKNT, R. 8. an or PATKNT. WHAT HAH UKKN IIRt.t) NOT TO AMOUNT Ta III /;„y,/ V. MrAl/'iiif^ a ^rcLean, 4Uf). — M.I^tM| with a full kiiiiwii'ilm' that they wore iiiaimfartiirt'd violation of tlic patent, cannot \w vu- liiifil, or held lialilii in any other way. Anon.,'^ Wi'st. Law Jour., HI.— N. v., 1H4:.. 9. A pinchaso from tlic ilcfciKhints of !i pati'nttMl article by an ii;,'i'"t of the icitcntfc, anil for the (tiir[K».sc of cntrap- iiiri;,' the (lefiiidant, is not snch a Hale as will rentier tliein liable. iSj,t(rktiuni V. iliinii»if, '-' iMatciif, ;to, ;ii.— jJii-iTH, J.; N.'y., 1840. 10. If a machine, iih made l»y the lUleiidaiit, was jiot an iiiCiaction of the Iilaiiilitf's patent, tlie alteration of it by a third party will not niako the defeiid- niif liable. Ibit if the niaehine, as made by the defendant, a\ a.s intended by him tit operate in snch a wii} as to violate tlio pliiintiirH patent, and lias in fact so (i|M'rftt('d, ho is a party to the infringe- ment, iiotwifhsfandinu (he ingemiity with which ho may have sought to dis- ;,'iiise his wronj^. Knitjht \, (rVawV, Mir. Pat. Off., 1.13.— Kank, J. ; Pa,, 1840. 11. If the machine used by the ik'feiidant dilfers materially from that ik'seiihed in the patent, there is iK)t ;iii infringement. Aiken v. Jiemis, 3 Wood. & Min., 353. — Woodhury, J. ; Ma/'/., 3.50, \\r>\. l:t. Will I ,\ and I {agreed williCto purchase of the latter all of acerViiii ar- ticle, leatl ]>ipe, which he Hhoiild make, A and 15 agreeing to furnish the lead and pay C agivi-n pric(( for manufactur- ing, and (' used in such maniii'actnre a machine patented to pl.iiiitiirs assignor, JIdil, in an action for inlViiigemeiit against A, H, and C, that if A ami I) had no connection with the maiiiitU<;tine, except to furnish the lead and pay iK given i)rico, that they were not liable for iidVingement. Tiithinn v. Le lioy^ MS.-^ N|.;!,so\, .T. ; 8o. N. Y., 1849. 14. Hut if the agreement was oidy colorable, and entered into for the pur- pose of securing the profits of the bus- iness without assuming tho responsibil- ity for the use of tho invention, then they would be liable. Aiding and as- sisting a person in carrying on such a business and in operating the machiiu'ry will implicate tho parties so engaged. Ibid. 15. One machine or manufacture i-j not a vitdation of another, within tho purview of tlio patent system, unless it is subst.antially tho same. It need not bo identical, but it must bo similar in tho principle, or mode of o{)er.atioii. Smith V. Doicning, MS. — "WoonnuKY, J.; Mass., 1850. # t J' • ' ia< wf .* -^^^ce ,,,■ l^-' >p^'' •7t INFUINCiEMKNT, IK 3. I'j'^iir'^i^'. '^^ I V »«.. . , i(^ f\i :«si or IMTR5T. WHAT IttM niui ttm TO Auouirr to. 10. Whuii tiu'ii* rvHiiltH liilt'cr luvor- ably unit (•oti^iit«'i-al)ly, it in I'oiiMith'ri'il tliiit tlirn* lllu^\t!<|K>cts, tilt) uiithur in not guilty ut'uny iiu'clianical piriicy. Jhhl. 17. A nail' of II patentee! aitielt", to an ii^eiit of the |iateiile«', eiii|iloye(l to in.'iku tlu) pnreliaNi', by liiiii nml on 1 w uecoiuit, IH not, /wr at, an iiil'iiii^^C' nn>nt of li'iH patent. Jli/nni v, /litllnnf, 1 Curt., \ii'2. — C'tim-., J.; AIiihx., lhr)2. i"^. Siich u Hale, however, accunipii uicd Ly other circuiiistunees, may wur- riiiit a jury ill finding an infringeiiient. Ifml. I(»'J, 10. The nic'iUH Hpecifieil in a patent to produce u rertult or elfet-t, and noth- ini; niDie, arc pateiileil, or seeureil, and llirre if« no infriii|fenu'nt, unless the enHalion fi,f ii„ profit of atlvaulage I lie jiarty mas i|i rive from JtH use. llroinn v. Jtuil„»ni 1!» How., lOfl.— Tamcv, Ch. J,;.S„|,' Cl., IH.-iO. 22. 'J'he exilusive use graiile.l tn u patentee does not extend to a fnitiirii vessel lawfully entering our ports; un,] the use (jn such vessel of an iinpiOM- meiit patented in this eniiiitry,is not wu infringement of the rights of tlie.\iii,i iean patentee, provided it was planil upon such vesst'l in a for»ign port, !iii4 authorized by tho laws of the cduiiIiv to which she belongs. Ihltl,, Idb, 23. An infringement will not havt taken place, unless the invention can itu practisetl completely by following tin speciiications. An infringeiiieiit is u copy made (ifter, ami agreeing wiili the principle laid down in the patent ; and if tho patent does not fully de- scribe every thimj essential to \W niuk ing of the thing jiatented, there will \k no iniVingement by tho fresh invention of processes which the patentee has withheld from the public. A/«/« v. i-t'/vy, iNIS. — Wii.KiNS, .1. ; Midi., 1857. 21. If tho defendant's macliiiio, in its original Btnicture, was in fact and in truth no infringement, no piracy on tin.' [ilaintitr's machine, and was not inluni ed to be .so, neither accident nor usage, as the natural wear of the ni;iterial of which composed, could make it ko. Mind must be associated with niattci, in tho comnii.ssion of tho tiesjmss. 1; is tho intention which gives the guilty hue to tho act. Ibid. -.;_ . 25. Where, therefore, in a p.atent fur improvements in portable circular-sii«' mills, tho patent covered merely a cow- INI IU\r.KAIi:\T, C .173 ARKH. WIIAI' IM, AMI Ntrt/MOV. Mnution «>f ihc- h«i' of rtilltTX, or (heir ,.,jiiiv.'il'.'ill»t,torRi4iil ti^ tlHMJrciihir huw, witli I *tiW wWU'h htv\ /rei'. en I / /liny, mo nil not in nny cmo to linvo an onlillNt n xhoiiMcr in itN onliimry r(>v»)liiti«>ii«, /AM tliiit if till' (Iffi'ihl- t'n Mi;U'lnii»' W(i« ori;»iii!ill)- roiiHtrii' ' ed nii'i (le»iie fha shafts IM> HH to oj-mTntP without vml fd.iy, asi'l hy itn uhajt*', ■'»"*1 hv lh«' wrM- (if the in«'t;il of wln is no violiti'Mi of ilii> ris^lits of a patentee, under llu' lawn of th*- Fnit "d StatpH, c^ivinjj to him an PXfliisi\ o ri'/lit to UM' tin- lliinuj patented, provid I'd llio use of tlie tliinjj: patented l»y a tliird pi'i-son w tnidor a license or j^rant from the patentee, and sueli pcM'Hon oov- cniitMnt* to do certain things on liis jinn, ill consideration of siioli license. Juil»'>n <(' (iiKiilfixtr V. Union I, R, Co., 4 niatfhf.— In(ikk9oi.i,, J.; X. Y., 1857. ■j7. If an invention he hut an imftrove- mont on a linowii niaehiiie, tlif inventor cannot treat another a^ nn infrinj^er, who bas iniprovi'd the original machine l»y iisinj; a ditTercnt form or coinhination, jicrforminjj the same fiuict ion. Met'or- mick V. Titloott^ 20 How., 405. — Gkikk, J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. m. The inventor of a first iinprovo- mont, cannot invoke tlie doctrine of imvhiuiical equivalents to suppress all other iniprovemcnts, which are not mere colonible invasions of the first. Ibid., •105. '29. The use of a patented invention, nsa Viiatter of business, .and the product nf which is thrown into maiivct for the imrpose of being sold, caimot be called ( vperirMiMital, but U %\\A\ u iiso nn will niiiketiK! party liable. l*opjienheu»en «. '' V. O, /'. Comb Co., 4 llUtihf.— IfK.KHHoti,, J.; N. Y., IK»8. .'10. Where two nwiohinert produce th« same result, but the moans used b^eaeli lo elli cf or produce hu< h result ar»' dlf. ferunt, the two maihincs ure not aliko in principle, nnd the one in not an in- fringement ui' )ti the <»tlK«r, Jinrrv. {' iwi»iihwniU',\ nintilif. — iNiitmui.!,. J., Ct., i85H. JU. A p tent fi>r makinj^ Inmiu't frames* is not infringed h; making simply the crown of a bonri . Evidence as to^ and hij whom deter- rt lined. Sec KviDENCF, II. ;5. <\ Ok Tkade-Maiiks. tSee also EiiLiTV, C. 1. The making and s.-ilo of medicines, under (lio name of medicines prepared ;md soltl by the plaintilf, and selling them as and for those of the plain! iff, is .1 fraud upon the jdaintilf, and an injury to his rights, ft)r which the law will presume damage. Thotnson v. Win- rhcKter, 19 Tick., 210.— Siiaw, C'li., J.; Mass., 1H37. 2. And the plaintifl*, such a case being proved, will be entitled to recover nom- inal dam:igo, at least, and more, if ho shows he has sustained it. Ibid., 210. 3. The fact th.it others have imit.ited the trade-mark and Labels of the plain- 4 f ll i i ""^^ki; ^H* ir*^W^^,^i, -■i^^i^m^^W, ^"^4^ ^■imi ^^^"^i _,^;UL._«44i ^ -f^^.^ .\^^\"^ '<^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT.3) 1.0 ill I.I 1.25 tlitZl 125 lit 2.2 m \1£ llib Photographic Sciences Corporation ^. f\ k ^ro- tect the defendant. iJaris v. K<')idpose they are purchasing an .article manufactured by the plaintiff, instead of the defend- ant. Ibid., 579. 25. The wrong for which remedies for violation of trade-marks are given, con- sists in misrepresenting to the public, by the use of that trade-mark, goods or wares of another person as having been manufactured by the true proprietor of that mark, and thereby depriving liim, to a creater or less extent, of the benefit of the good-will of his establishment, and the reputation of his articles, l^tokes V. Landgraff,- 17 Barb., S. C, 009.— Strong, J. ; N. Y., 18^.3. 20. If the article sold under the for- gery of a trade-mark is inferior to th.at made by the true owner, he is injured in reputation ; md if it be of a similar quality and kind, its sale goe:; so far to diminish the sale or his own article, and thus works a pecuniary damage. Le- I 'Tii'WWif'' ' W' WL .'^i ,:> til"**! Ui^OH^ t*. f\ ^^^\^ kkr^^^w lLI I *j«!ot was ertWted l»y counterfeiting (he trade-mark whieh lie uses iit j»resi'nt, or one that he formerly used. J/>i(f., .'J4H. 2H. Where a party Avas a manufac- turer of steel pens, whieh he put up in bo.ves for sale, such boxen bearini; par- ticular numbers or labels which indica- ted the character ol' the iiiticle, and another removed from the inferior pen* the number api>ropriati' to them, ;ind placed upon them the label of a sup(!- rior kind, such acts are a fraud ujmn the public !ind the true owner, for which lie may have an action. (t'Ulott v. Ket- tle, :} Duor, 020, 627. — Uoswuktii, J.; N. Y., 1854. 29. In the imitation of trade-marks, the essence of the Avrong consists in the sale of the goods of the manufac- turer or vender as those of anothei ; and it i.' only to the extent in which 8ue!i a false representation is made that a party can have a title to relief. Sitm- uel V. Jierger, 24 Barb., S. C, 104.— Davies, J.; N. y., 1850. 30. The mere fact that names used on a trade-mark are fictitious will not authorize the use of it by strangers. Stewart v. Smithson-, 1 Hilton, 121. — Bkady, J. ; N. Y., 1856. 31. The question to be determined is, whether the mark used by the paity claiming tlie protection of the court is owned by him, without regard to its form, which such party lias a right to design according to his judgment or his fancy. Ibid., 121. 32. To render a person liable for false representations by the use of false signs or trade-m.'irks, the i.ign or m.ark iniist be laise ill fact, and be so kiiouu l,j the party using it, and have been used with the intention, to dvreivc, and be ol' mkIi a character as would mislead a perMin using ordinary caution. Peterson, y, l[iinii>hrey, 4 Abb. I'r., 31)5, liOCi.— MiTciiKM,, J.; N. Y., 1857. .'13. An imitation of a trade-mark, with partial ditVerencea sucii as the pub li<^ would not observe, does the parly entitled thereto the same harm as an entire counterfeit. Clark v. Clark, iS Barb., S. C, 79.— MmiiEU., J.; N. Y., 1857. 34. Though the wholesale buyer who is most familiar witli the marks mav not be misled, if the small retailer nr consumer is, the injury is the same in law, and differs only in degree. IhiO., 7!i. 35. If a defendant has adoi»ted a dc- vice or name so diflSering from that adopted by the plaintiflT as in nowiso to deceive the public or do iiijurv to the plaintiff", then lie is not liable. Jim-- nett V. Phalon, 12 Mo. Law Kcp., 221. — I'iKRUEI'ONT, J.; N. Y., 1859. 30. When one intentionally closely imitates the trade-mark of another, as using the word "oocoine" instead of " cocoaine," the law presumes it to have been done for tlie purpose of in- ducing the public to believe that tlio article is that of him whose tiade-inark is imitated, and for the purpose of sup- planting him in the good-will of his trade and business. Ibid., 223. 37. In an action for the infringement of a trade-mark, the plaintiff' is not en- titled to recover, as a part of his dam- ages caused by the infringement, the costs of obtaining an injunction in the case. Burnett v. Phalon, 12 Abb. Pr., 180; 21 How., Pr., 102.— Moncrief, J.; N. Y., 1801. INJUJ^CTIONS, A. 377 AH TO COl'TII.OIITS. WHEN WTLt, IHMUB AND KXTKXT Of, INJrXCTlONS. \, Tv llKsi"';i/, 4 McLean, 100, 101.— CuKlAM, Ohio, 1840. 7. A court of equity can restrain a future vi(dation of a copyright, as well as require an account for a past one ; and such remedy is often better than damages, Avhich alone can be had at law. Pierjwntx. Fowle, 2 Wood. & 3Iin., 35. — WoooHUUY, J.; Mass., 1840. 8. In res2)ect to co])yrights, the course has been so liberal as to enjoin, if an ecpiitable or clear title exists ; and if the title be free from doubt, the court will always enjoin. Ibid.,, 39. 9. Though small in value, an imita- tion or .appropriation of another's in- vention or copyright may be actionable, and the subject of an injunction, per- haps, if easily separated from the rest. But where the appropriation is small, and pervades the whole work, and no permanent injunction can issue without destroying the whole, such a remedy would be disproportionate, unsuitecl to II '^rWk;^ («l«'l^L ■- -i-irf Il^ 878 1 N.I r NOTIONS, A. ill "Mli3^'' ^i ,:.'«^'lffi ■^^.\. m .11 -',;^«:* )>i AH TO COl'VKIilllTH. MIIKX WILL ISHUK AM) KXTKXT OK. till' CaSi', ainl fluTflolV lllljllst, Wiflf) V. Poicrs, '2 W.mmI. it IMiii., r)LM, 5^:1. — Vt'ot»i)iiL'KV, J. ; Maf's., 1^47. 10. The ilafiiatfi's HUHlaiiicil may hv o))taiiit>il ill a suit at law, without (lo- st roving till' wlioK' work, and sudi wotiM bo till) inoNt i'(juital)lc rclirl". Jf>ul., '>'2a. 1 1 . Itut wlioro a violation is clear, and the part copied can readily he separated, nil iiijiiiictioii issues against siieh part. "Where a parly wilfully mixes the proji- erty of another with liis own with a l»aln;,l and sold such decisions, //(A/, that ihr plaintills, though not the assignees of tho entire privilege oi'coi>yright, had a jnr. feet title to the beiielieial inti'rest tlu'ic- in during the stijiulated term of llvr years, and tliut it was such a title as tliu court was bound to take cognizaiu'c of. Ibid., 181, 1811. 17. AVhere, however, such re))ortcr, after his removal from the said position of reporter, jirepared a volume of the decisions of said court, on his own ac- count, and in his individual or piivati cajiacity, such volume containing, how- ever, some decisions that came iiilo his hands while he held the official po- sition of reporter — and sold the siiiiie to the defendants, who published tlif same. Held, on a bill liled by the plain- tift's for an injunction, and claiming title to such volume, by virtue of the agiee- ment referred to in the case last .above named, that the plaintiffs could not be considered as the legal owners of the volume, for the ])urposcs of the contract under the copyright laws, and that they were not entitled to an injunction to prevent its publication and sale. What- ever obligation may arise under such contract as to such volume, is fouudctl on the failure of the reporter to furnish the manuscripts to the plaintifl". Little V. Hall, 18 How., 172.— McLeax, J.; Sup. Ct., 1855. L^^ in.ii:nc;tu>ns, n. i. n.u AH TO PATKNTH. tlKSKRAI. I'ltlSCII'I.KH AN Tt). IS. Wlii'i'o, Oil II motion for an iiijmic- tiiiii to H'straiii till' !illt'i;i'il vmlMtioii of ji (uiiyri-jlit, it apln-ari'd that licit lirr the jill,..i,aj^o no*- a voluiiu' of the jiriiilcd liook Inul bcon (Icpositod until iiioro |ii:iii two yi'ai'^ afttT tlio wmk liatl l»t'iMi Iiiiti!i-yrij^lit, Jfehf, that such person would not be permitted to stop the sale of tlie -work, even if lie had a valid copyright therein, lly aid- ing ill the publication, lie agreed to it, and by assenting tliat the work might be published, ho agreed tliat it might be sold. Heine v. Appleton^ 4 Blatclif. — Iniikusoi.l, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 20. On a motion for an injunction for the infringement of a coj)yriglit, a ref- erence will not be made to a master to examine the map or book of the com- plainant, and also that of tlie defend- ant, and report the facts, with liis opin- ion on the question of the infringement ' of right. Such motions must be dis- posed of on the moving papers of the complainants and the affidavits on *he part of the defendants in opposition thereto. /Smith v. Juhnsrm, 4 Blatclif. — IscEKsoLL, J. ; N. y., 1858. n. Tv UKsi'Etrr to Patksth. I. (teneral J*rinn'/tlcs ajtplieuhla to uU kinds of, 1. A judge of the court in vacation can allow a writ of iiijiiiiction in ihoso cases only where it may bi! granted by the Supreme or a Circuit Court. TAv- hiijstdn V. Villi ftiijcti, 1 I'aine, 4 7. — liiviviisroN, .r. ; X. V.. lull. 2. Where, therefore, a suit was com- menced on the e(juity side of the ('ir- eiiit Court for the infringement of a patent, and praying for an injunction, .'ind the parties were residents of the same state, Jfeld, that the court had no jurisdiction of the case, as under the judiciary act the court could take juris- diction only as between citizens of dif- ferent states, and the act of IHOO con- ferred jurisdiction in patent cases only in actions at law, and that the injunc- tion must be refused. Ihid.^ 4H, .^t. 3. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, in all cases of granting injunctions to prevent the violation of patent-rights, the court is to proceed according to the course and principles of courts of e(piity in such cases. Sidl'nian v. liedjield, 1 Paine, 448.— Tiiompsov, J.; N. Y., 4. The jurisdiction exercised by a court of ecjuity in granting an injunc- tion is in aid of the common law, and shoidd not be asserted Avhen the right is doubtfuh The court in gr.'inting the injunction acts ujion the assumption that the righ> has been infringed, or tliat lit- tle or no doubt exists on that point. 77ionias v. Weeks, 2 Paine, 97. — Thomp- son, J. ; ir. Y., 1827. 5. A bill will lie for an injunction, if the patent-right has been established, or t f W -/wW^ .^^.^ / 7^, 'Jit; ■ w W^fc-^W flpl i i,i!'sw -■' Pi t-'4.. llit! ' ^ ^^^'Wl' t:->. ;***'' t*4i,;i 8«0 IN'jrNCTIoVfl. R 1. AH TO PATKNTH, (l>:N»:UAr. I'KINntl'I.KM AN TO. i^ nJfuiffcil, upon well [^roiUKlcil proof of ill! a|ipl'('llt'll(li'<| iliti'iilioii of the lie t'l'iiilaiil to violiito tlu; patciii-ri^lit. A Itill, qnUt tiiHi'iy Ih nil ortliiiiiry r«>iiii<>. (t. Ilills tor iiijiiiiftions nrv usually broiiLjIit all|«'r tin* title to a patent lias Im'cii ('stalilislicil, ami tlic cxpfctalion is (liat the only ipiestions ai^ilatnl will l>i> (lie anioiint to lie uccoiinteil tor, and tlit> rest rictioiiH for the future. Orr v. Mer- rlll, 1 \Vo(mI. it Mill., ;»78.— W. m Kv, .1.; .Me., \HU\. 7. Injiinetions lieint; proliiliited in the oouits of the United States (hy 5$ r* oh. 22, of the net of 17n;t, 1 Stal. at Tjar<;e), without notice first to the op- posiiiLT l''i'"'y, it follows that all of them must 1)0 reganled as speci.al, rather than Honiu of them as common o<' matter of course, and therefore when resist eil un- der such notice, whether the hearing conies on hefore or after :iii answer, no iiijunetion can be granted unless special and sullicient cause is clearly shown, Pirnj V. I'S'(//'. (font v. Larne.d., 2 Curt., 344. — Cuu- Tis, J. ; Mass., 1855. 13. A bill for an injunction should be filed in the state where the defend- ant resides. An injunc^tion will not is- sue out of a court in a state difl'eient from that where such defendant resides and carries on his business, on the ground that they would be beyond the process of the injunction, and the issuing of it would be inoperative and useless. Goodi/ear v. Chaffte, 3 Blatchf., 270.— Nkf.son, J.; N. Y., 1855. 14. A writ of injunction ought to contain a concise description of the par- ticular acts or things in respect to which the party is enjoined, so that there \m) INJUNCTIONS, 15. 2, a. 8J1 PRKr.iuisAnr. aluowkhc* or RivimAL or. 1)1' iii> iitiHii|t|in'lifii>iiiii oil till' hiiltjfct, iiioi'ti'i' '" ^^'"i''*""' ■'" iitl''ii'li>iii-iil for Im \in|iilii>ii. Wluitjih V, llntihin ,„n, \ l»liiU;lil". — Nki.h(»n, J.; N. \ ., 1H.)H. I,"). WliiTo tlio writ of iiijiiiKtliiiii re fi'iii'il l'> r ilic <|t'M ri|i- tiiiii iif llif tliiiij; nijoincil, siirli (!fscii|i- tidii iiiii) '**' Mitliciciit, HO till- as tin- (li'li'iKliiiil, wlio liiiM Itecii iilfiaily Horviul with iIk' coiiiiiliiint, 'ih (roiiccriuid, hut as to all olli'i" |»i'r.soiis it would not lie siif- iKii'iil. //'<■(/. 10. Tlu' writ of injunction is a n-inc- (liiil writ, in tlii! nutiirc of u proliiltiiion —to iircvcnt till' coininissioii of iiijuiics ill I'll! lire, not to redress injuries that arc |ia^t. It U(5ts as a rt'inctly a<^ainst a lineal t'la'd wroii;^ l»y jireviMitini^ tliu coiiunission of sneh wron^. Ptipjun- lnu.i,H V. A. )'. G. P. Comb Co., \ liLilelif. — Iniikusoi.i,, J.; M. Y., 1858. 17. It is not ni>c(fssary luifore such a writ to prevent a wronj;, issue, that the wroiij; should iiavo heen actually com- mitted. When the rights of a party have hccn cstablislied, and an infringo- mcnt of sucli rights is throat((ned, or where they liave been infringed, and the party lias good reason to believe they will continue to bo infringed, an injunction will issue. Ibid. 18. The remedy by injunction, tliougli necessary in certain cases to do com- liletc justice, is nevtrtheles.s one which sliould always be cautiously granted, especially where demanded before de- cree on final hearing on the nu-rits. Goodyear v. Dunhar, 3 Wall, Jr. — Geikk, J.; N. J., 18G1. 19. If the defendant Bhows a belief that he has a just defence, .ind is not a wilful pirate of the plaintiff's invention, it should be a case of evident mistake of law or fact, or both, in iii^ s, I J. '-'. d, 1. Wliert^ it appeared that the thing pMleiileil was the result of the sugges- tion of alio! her, /A A/, that il threw mo much doubt upon the patenteti^H riglit as the HrHt and solo uiventor, as to ren- tier it improper to grant an injunction until liis right has been tried at law. Tliomi'.H v. WtvkH, 2 I'aine, 102. — Thomson, . I. ; N. Y., 1K27. 2. A court of erpiity will not interfere in behalf of a patentee, either to grant an iiijunelioii, or to give him any relief in respect to an alleged violation of Iiin patent, if, after liaving obtained his [lat- ent, \w has surrendered or dedic;itei| it to the public, or acipiiesced, for u long period, in the public uso thereof with- out objection, as his own conduct may be considered as having led to such uso or application, or acts of ihe defendants. Wytifh V. Stone, 1 Story, 2H2, 284.— Stokv, .T. ; Mass., 1840. .'J. The granting of an injunction is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the Court. Ibid., 2S.5. 4. In awarding an injunction, a very delicate and liighly responsible power is used, which ought not to be exerted where there is re.isonable doubt as to the existence of any fact on which the application is founded. Cooper v. Mat- theios, 8 Law Rep., 415. — Baldwin, J. ; Pa., 1842. 5. In asking an injunction, the plain- tiff seeks either to interrupt the course ■\ '^^^ s^.w: 3SI| ^UuJU:J^t^ II I, -■■its,' :.S. < iu ^-^iS^'; li 80S INMINC TION'S. n. J. ri. I'KRMMIXARY. ALLOWANCH UH UKtlMAk ur. of llic t'oiiitiKMi law, or to ask fur hoiiio n-Iiff lu' caiiiiol \^^^\^' at law; lie iiiiiHt (■oiis('i|iiriitlv Htalt* aixl inakt' out a t'asi> for i'i|ui(al)li' ri-lit'f iiri siicli factK as liriii^ hin vmo within the jtiriHilictioii ')f tin- coiirtrt of equity, and proper fur ilH cx- frci^c. Iftnf., 4ltl. 0. TluTt' hlioiil.l lie u ciTtaiiity M to nil tlic material facts, for doubt and uii- ccrt:tinty are fatal to n motion to ^nuit an iiijiinclioM, tliouj^h it is j^ood cause for CDnliiiuiuLr it on a motion to dissolve, the burden of proof Iteiniron the jilnin- titf in one case, and on the defendant in the other. Ihid, ■\\i\. 7. An injunction will be ^^ranted nnly when the plainlitV has u>ed dut^ diii- jfenee in asserting his rij^hts. If he iie- quiesees, or is imuMivo whili' the dan;;»'r exists, ed to {' stUlb a possession lUhK r ihuin and color of right. //»/«/., \\\). 1 1. The rule on which cninisofciiiiity act by an injunction in the fu'st in>tiuii'i> is ti» leave the parlies in the same |M),i. tioii it finds them wlu>n the appliculiuii for relief is nuide, by protecting iho plainlitf in llu> same possession wliicli he had before enjoyed, and when tlio possession of the tiefiiidant had Ikci) unmolested, leaving the •••ght of pitssos. sion to be settled at law. //>/»/., J 10. I 'J. No cases come before a cmirf nf t'quily in which a great' i degree of dil. igenee is retpiired th:m applicatinns fur injunctions; their nature and ell'uct nro \ siu'h as to produce the most iirepuru- ble injury when improvideiitly graiilud. Ibid., 419. ly. Kqnity acts on dilfereut princi- ples in protecting the possessiuii of tliu plalntilf, or deerming to disturb the de- femlant ; it leaves the right of the imi'- ties as they stsind at law. //>/(/., 4J0, 14. The refusal of an injunction to ;» plaintiff does not inqiair his right (ir remedy at law. Nor does the gr.iiitiii;,' of an injuiuuion interfere with the di- fendant contesting, at law, the right of the plaintiff to the same extent as if eipiity had not interfered. Ilni!., 4:!i). 15. Courts of equity exercise this [lart of their jurisdiction, granting injiiiic- tious with great caution, always declin- ing it ia a doubtful case, and one not brought forward by a party who was vigilant, and not clearly within tlio established rules and principles of equity jurisprudence. Ibid., 421. 10. In most cases a court will not en- join, until the complainant has estab- lished his right at law. But where the IH' III'- 10 liar- |>ll to W [lit or aiitiui,' lie (Ic ;Iit of as if , 4'Ji). lis \yM miiiiu'- ik'diii- he not lo was 111 tlio letiiiity liot en- I estab- ire the INJINCTIONS, n. 2. rt. 383 MKUNINARr, ACLOWAMfN UK KKri'llAL Or. injury woiiM l>« irr«|tiin»l»l»', i»ii iiijiin*-- tliiii will li^tuc. Jlroiiln V. Hiiltnlf, ;» M.I.(Mii.'J<»-'.— M huuikI diM-rftioii (if the cuiiit wlietluM" to iKsiU' an injiiiic- tion or n'fiiHi! it ; or if issunl, to dis- .olvo iir ri't.'iin it. //>/»/., Ii>. 11). Till! nil«' is well Hcttli'd, that in cimos of iMtViii<;(>int>iit iiivolviii<; pointH to bo ik'ciilc'd by I ho ti'stiinony of i-x- pcrts, ami t's to which llicrc is a f,'ri at ilivoi>ity of o|iinioii, an itijiiii*-tioii will not he tleeriH'<| unless the ri^ht is «'lear, (ir has been estahlisheil by an aetion lit l;i\v. lii'iuth-A V. /{if/ifii/l, i MeFieaii, ::'.— Md-ioAN, .r. ; Ohio, \H\ru •10. A |i.'iteiitee will not be deeiiU'tl to have ae([iiiesee(l in the use <»f his inven- tion, bo as to ^einbl<; that a workman on a ma- ■liino, though not interesteil in it, is lia- l)le to be restraiiHMl in order to prevent ivasioiis. Woutniine(l, and is estopped from denying quifiU'it per alium, facitperse ; or if be hire one to work on such a machiuo. 7/'m/., 252. 2:i. .\n injunetiiiii will not be granted iigain>t I. persiiii re<«lr.iiirnig him from doing a inai'hitie, unl< s it is mIiow n 'hat he actually used it, or received prolit from it. //»/. An injuncfioti will 1m> granted as well against an agent, who merely nells the article which infringes ji p.ateiit, as .against the nianufacturei, as Itoth are joint trespassers, and they may be .sued jointly. Hiir/c v. Cohh it I/i ntidnci', It Law Uep., 547.--C'oNKi.lNti, J. ; N. Y., 18 to. 2tl. Where an inventcu- had nianufae- tured and put on s:ile his invention for some time before his applicatioii tor a patent, imtl hail also sold large (pianti- ties of the article invented, an ornamen- tal button, in packages marked as im- portecl from Paris, thereby .atVording an implieation that he was not the original inventor, JIcl(l,\ix an action for infriiige- uu'iit, and the novelty of the invention being denied, that he was lutt entitled to a ]>rovisi oiial injunction, until his right should have been established at law. liuothw Garelly, 1 IJlatchf., 250. — Ni:i.sov, J.; N. Y., 1847. 27. Where one person runs a m.v eliine which others own, ami which iiia- cliiiie is a violation of a patent, an in- junction will issue against all for the violation. Woodicorth v. EdinnrJs, 3 Wood. & IMui., 133. — WouDUUuy, j.j Mass., 1847. I LI ^•fcw. ■^4m- ^=^\. ^-^ ^ '^ " .•Ww, J ,' T ■A- ■w WW! lit^Wi ^■.■-■\;.9^W^m 'rliil n i. ..iff ^^i n^ IXJrNcTloNH, II. t. a. '' '■«"*#' ;i: ■1. »1Ntt :v. i! ■^'^•:> M!i. rURMNtRAIIT. AIJ^tWANl'M DR NKriNAI. or. 2i). If nil iiijiiiii'liuii I1114 b<><>n Infiuiut n^!iiii<*i 11 iiiTHon, rcMtriiiiiiii;; liiiii IVmhi tliv llHii of nil iillf^i'il iiivrillinli, u liicli liijiiiiclioii ri-iiiaiiM ill full i<)ri'«>, iiiitl tlii> ^riiiiti iiMt> of hui'li til!i'p'<| iiiv«>ii> timi will not Ih> pci-initti-il \>y tiiird |M>r- ion*, cliiiniiiit; from NUfli porNoii, l>iii tliry will iiNo !»»• fiijoini'tl. //»/«/., I.'l.l. '.M». An injiinftion is m-xt-r i»«iK'tl in liDHtilit) to \vli;it Hct'iu to ))(> tint It-^al rijijIitH of |>firtii*M, tint in aid ami protiM'- tioti of tlu'in. i\nil wlifiicvor » trial in Iiail, .-ln.wiiii; that tin- rij^lits at law an- with the party mjoiniil, tlu' injunction, (iM itiiiatt«'r of coin'MO, will !•«> tli'^Holvcil. Wooifwoft/i V. /iiit/irn, ■■! Wool, tt Min., 160. — Wooiiiii KV, J.; .MaNX., |h|7. !»0. Wln'ii' a hill was filnl for an Mi- junction, to rc^train the running of a inachiiio in violation of the plainlitrH rights, and the defendants justified un- der a license, which li.e coin|ilainant ;il- lej;ed Iwul heen ahanduiied, hut there 'wati no isNiio of ahandoninunt niadt> in the plealley, 4 McLean, 270.— McLkav, J.; Ohio, 1847. 31. The grant of a patent by the p.nt- ont office, is not of itself, or in virtue of § 7 of the act of 1 H;t((, a har to an In- terlocutory injunction, in favor of a per- son claiming to be a prior patentee of the same thing; and particularly as such person had no notice to appear and be heard at the patent office, and the court being satisKed on a hearing before it that the last granted patent M'.as an interference with the one previ- ously grjmted. Wilsonx. liiir/iuni, I Wall, Jr., 340, 350.— Kaxe, J. ; l*u., 1849. 82. Wlicre the court is itself satis- I Hod rhrit tlip ilefendnnti are infl Iti^i),,. the plain*iirM riuhl, although the iiiiijor Ity of i'\p«>rtM, called an wiinoMM-H, ynvrv of the opinion that there waM no in. fringcineiif, it i-« itn duly to grant an in junction to rcNtrain miicIi iiilVin^rnittit. /A/7., Mftl.M.Mi. :i:i. .\n injunctioii will be granitl agaiiiHl a licensee to restrain hini fnun the UMc of a machine, in violation nt'iln' conditioiiH of his license, if appliiil tiir during the time of niicIi violation, V.'H. i*on V. S/nnmni, 1 Illalehf, 540.— Xk',. SON, .1.; N. v., IH.'.O. .'II. Hut where it appears that thi' m. olatioii haH been under a misappnliin- HiiMi of liiH rightH, ami he has di>c(j) tinued the viohitioii, an iiijun<-lii>n w, not be granted. //', '2 lUatchf., 14."), 151.— Nklhon, J.; X. Y., 1H50. 30. The chief object of issuing writs of injunction before the final heariii;,' df a cau:. a. 8t5 • liB.'ri |iii;i wills ■ai'iiifi 'it' [ililf mis- liKiiit tlie I'lM- IVlllll |iy siitlVr V. >'(;t(rt, Mitnry in- pI" ilixri- lids ujioii |>ach case. Ion should Itillo.anJ rN»I.INIMAHY. AI.M>WAKt'|| DM Hrri'HAl, itr. \ht iVfiMulniit'H ilitVili;{rllli'iil lire iit|- n^Mi'il) ••I* iK'i' *" |''kl|iiil>l(> itinl I li'iir tliiil tl)i> '.'Ulll't t'llll ••IlllTlllill llitiloiilll III! lllt> »iiliji'(i. I*. an. Wlii'iT, liowi'vcr, llio r«i>twt'r»» or lirtlilu^il" »•■*' iM|iiivoniI iiikI ('vrtMivf, nr ,||iicloH«t w xititi* tit' tiit'lM which )«how thiit till' ('iiiii'liiMionH ilriiwii iVuiti tln'iii nri' rUaily rrroiiroiiH, uiul toiiiulf)! oil u mUtikkt' lit' htw ; at whfti mi intViii^'f- mciit it •IuiiUmI tiii iiil'i iiim'fiii'>til, audit in I'vidi'Ml thiit tht> dmiul is inad«> iiinli'T a ;;rtmH luiHliikc of the Inu' «'i»ii- iitrui'lioii i'ilit.v oftht' iiivonlioM in dciiicil in }.niii'i;d Icriiis, and iiifViii;,'('ini'iit in ad- iiiiltid, and till' pati'iit ha^ ln'cii fully (!«<.tlili^lit'd at law, ami it Ih evident tli;it till' di-nial of its validity in but n miittur iif oliHtinati! o]iiiiiitiitu quo until tlii' Icpil rij^htn can be ast'ortaiiii'd. Ono ••lafcrial qucH- tiou always iH, whi'tliiT ihu uefondants arc n'x|Kinsil»lo. Dni/ v. Hoitton lidt- ing Co., Mo. Law Ki-p., ;j:tO, MilL- SriiAiii K, J.; ]\IasH., iH.'i.'j. 41. Tho diroftors of a luaiiufacturinj; t'(ii|p(irati(Hi, who iiiaiiai;i' ami supcriii- U'lid its liusiiR'ss, anil under wlmsi' di- rcolioii artick's are inanufai-turrd which aro an iiifriiif^onu'nt of a patotit, and the iij.'1'tits who oomliirt tho businoss of silliiij{ nuch artii'los, aro rosponsiblo for such iiitVingoinent, and may bo restrain- ed by injunction. Goodyear tb Union Mkr Co. V. Phelps, a Hlutchf , 93.— Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1853. 42. 0: e tenant iu common has as good riijlit to u«i* and tici i!«i' oiImtn to iim n tiling pati'iiti'd, iiM anoiher Itiiant ill I'oniiiiori. Nflthor cnii eoiiio into u I'ourl of i'i|uity and a^Hort ii Hiiporior t'ljiiily, iiiiU'>t>« it Iki>« liii-n croaied by Honii- «'otitrii<-l lii'twi-cn tlutii. N>>iii< Minh oxiotint;, one leiiiiiit in rogmioii I'liniiot I'lijoiii ilio other tVoni niieli luo or Hiilo. f'liiht V. /triirn; 'J Curt., A'i (. — ('lliriiH, J.; Ma.«»!> ; Iw.*.."). 4:i. A eoiirt of o<|uity upon aliill filed Ity a h'ual owner of a patent eaniiot cnjoii, the e<|uital)le owner from u«ing it. //'/'/., rt'.'H, .'•)•.•». 44. In actiii;.; on applications for temporary injiinetioii« to restrain the infiinj,'einent of letters patent, there in iniieh latitude of discretion. The :ip- plication may be ^'r.-intcd or rct'iixd uii" eoinlitionally, or tertiiM may be iinpoNod on eitlior of the fiarties as conditions for iiiakiny or refusing; the order. J'or- hush \ . lirmt/iii'd, ' I >b». Law l.'.-p., IT I. — Ciinis, J.; Mass., iH.'dJ. 4fl. Tlie Htato of tho liiiju'atlon, whoro the plaint iff'.s title is dcnte'!, the natiiio of the iiiiprovenicnt, the ehara.ter and I'xient of the iiifrin;^enient complained of, anil tho comparative ineonvonieiuo w hich will \te oec.xsionod to tho respect- ive parties, by allowiiiLj or disallow iiiji; the motion, must all bo coiiNidercd in determining wheth'T it s!iould be al- lowed or refused ; and if at all, whether absolutely or upon some and what eon- ditioiis. Ibid,, 471. 4(1. Where tho defendants wcro only iisini; in thoir own business a ooftaiu num})er of the jtatonted invention, looms for weavinjj;, and were not makinf» and selling, tho court ordered an in- junction, unless tho defendants should within a certain number of days give a bond to keep n account of tho cloth made on each of the looms, and fide tho ^H^»i*^wULC^ :^t'l 'TT ]^A. m^ ' C«iW, «4 I nil; V •><««l»; '.*^.'':'^( *?S^, 5*5 lill 4 380 INJUNCTIONS, B. 2. a. I'llEUMIN'AllT. AM,OVrAN0H OR RKFUB^I. OF". Bamc uikUt oath fflicc ii» tlirco nioiith'", aiul to pay tlio aiiiciiiit, of any final do- creo in the caiisi'. I hid., 47'J, il'A. 47. If a (Iffondant lias "i>een making and rii'lling a thing jiati'Mtcd for more than two years before the ajiplication for a patent by (he patentee, an injunc- tion will not issue to restrain him from do'ng that whieh lie was accustomed to do at the lime of the granting of the patent, ({•bhcnl v. P(i;/of, 4 Blatchf. — Inoeksoli,, J.; \. V., 1857. 48. Where by granting an injunction there is more danger of producing an irreparable injury to (he defendant than pre\en(ing it on (he part of the com- plainant, it should not begrante<^ Iftid. 49. Every man who stand' (on a patent has a prima facie title, whicli upon a preliminary question will not be pronounced good for nothing. (Jo)i.\|)lr('«l. Tin- l,„j V. Xor. <0 War. Ji. Ji., ^IS.— In- t,Ki!stM.r-, J.; t't., 1858. T)". All interlocutory injuiu'tlon will not be "'r:iiite«l when the (lefendjint lias letters puti'iit for the siiine iiiveiitioii, ;m tlie pliiiiitilV's, wliicli iWi} jin'mafnru' valid. SiV'ifevt v. Garter., 1 1 JNIo. Law Hop., 052. — Curtis, J. ; Mass., 1858. .W. To autliorizo an injunction it is \\n{ necessary that all the j^rauts of pVht in the plaiutift'*s patent should have heen infringed. All that is re- (iiiired i< that sonic of them should liuve been. Potter v. I/olla7id, MS. — hr.Kiisoi.r,, J.; Ct., 1858. 59. Under the practice .and decisions (if the seventh circuit an injunction will be refused in a patent case, if upon the facts presented there is a fair doubt wlietlier the defendant has infringed. Vo'hje V. Card, MS. — Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1800. CO. Upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendant justified his acts under an outstanding adverse pat- ent, which however was alleged to have hoeu irregularly issued, I/eld, that the roiirt would not ignore the rights of parties lUider such instrument, because there may have been eome irregularity in its issue, and assume it to be a nullity. Mitchell V. Barclay., MS. — Siiipman, .T.; N.Y., 18G0. 01. The granting or refusal of an injunction in a patent case rests in the sound discretion of the court. A rash 01 indiscreet exercise of such power maybe very oppressive, as of no use tothe conipl.ainant and ruinous to the ilefendant. Sanders v. Logan, 3 Wall., Jr.-GRiER, J.; Pa., 1801. C2. As a remedy it should be admin- istered only for prevention and prolec- ItioQ. Wb^rc 't is not necessary fo- these purposes, it is merely vindictive, injuring one ji.irty without benefit to the other, Ihid. Oil. Tile issue of an injunction to stop a mill or a manufactory, locomotive or steam-engine, because in their construc- tion some ))atented device or machine has been used, would be an act oftnore than doubtful discretion. Ibid. 04. Stopping the mill or engine miijbt ihflict irrejxtrable injury, but could not benefit the inventor. Ibid. C5. Where the injury done to the patentee, by the use of his invention, exists not in using his invention, but in using it without paying compensation therefor, it being his interest that his invention should be used by all, provide. rUL:i.lMINARY. KlflHT TO, rilOM KXCI-IHIVK I'OHSKSrtlON, KTC. (•ts! '' ^. I Tlie tlfft'inlaiit, l»y virtue of his patent, h:[n n j»-ii)i(i J'tKu>]v'^:\i rison (.3 JVferiv. ()'22), in which Lord Eldon adopted the rule before referred to, the patentee had liad liis patent-right in operation for about eighteen months ; but this was considered too short a period to justify a continuance of the injunction. J/'id., 452. (5. If the bill states a clear right to the thin"' patented, which, together with tlie alleged infringement, is verified by affidavit, and if the plaintiff has been in possession of it by having used it or sold it, in part or in whole, the court will grant an injunction, and continue it till the hearing or further order, with- out sending the plaintift' to law to try his right. Ogle v. B(/e, 4 Wash., 584. — Wasiiixgton, J. ; Pa., 182G. 1. Where a patent Avas granted in 1818, and was on its face free from all exception, and six years thereafter the patentee sold the right for Pennsylva- nia for $'700, and bill was filed in 182G for an injiniction to restrain an iidVinge- ment, JfeUf, that the injunction woidd be retained luitil the invaliility of the patent, or the want of title in the plain- titf, should bo established by law. f/iid, 585. 8. Where there h.asbeon an exclusive possession ftrsotne considerable time, of a patent-right, the court will sometimes, on the ground of possession, grant an injunction, without recpiiriug the party previously to establish the validity of the patent at law. Thvmas v. Wivks, 2 Paine, 97.— Thomi-son, J.; N. Y., 1827. 9. But where the patent is recent, and any real doubts are entertained of ita validity, the court Avill reqiure that it be established at law before it will grant the patentee the benefit of an injunction. These principles are well settled in this country, and are founded on the sound- est rules of justice aiul equity. lOiiL, 97. 10. The sale of an invention, and its use by the inventor and his vendors, is sufficient evidence of an exclusive pos- session by claim and color of title, so that equity will protect in the continued enjoyment, Avhatever doubts may exist as to the validity of the patent. Cooper V. M'ltt/ieirs, 8 Law Kep., O. S., 419.— Baldwin, J.; Pa., 1842. 11. The doctrine laid down by Lord Eldon in Hill v. 2Vio)n2ison,3 Meriv. R. 022, as to granting injunctions in patent cases, stated in Sullivan v. liedjield {ante, 3 and 4), is tlie true doctrine, and ia indispensable to the repose of titles, iind the security of patentees. Wash- burn V. Gould, 3 Story, 170. — Stout, J.; Mass., 1840. 12. In motions for an injunction, the fact that the plaintiffs have for some considerable time enjoyed their rights, I il Pi n 321&^ III k^U. «»-'•■, -'v.. 'tf'^ ...^.^U^wmUw ;a !!''t(a: ■i*-T,: WWv '^'^^^'^] 800 IN.ir\(TloNS, I'.. 'J. />. - «%* V ^i>^: HI Hi (I rRKLtlflirAtT. RKIIir TO, KUOM KXCI.UMVK |-iishi;mMi).V, KW.. [I i.M impurtaiit, siml cannot lu' dlsrcijfardt'tl. Jit'oo/iK \. liii-Aftill, ;J McLi'an, 201). — MiLicAN, J.; (Jhiu, 184;i. 13. WIUTU tlllTL' hiitl l)t'cn posKussloii for Home consiileruble Icnj^th of tiniu under a piitont — the patent having been extended — a!id u jiidj^nient in an aetion at law had been recovered against anoth- er deten(hint for the use of a machine substantially the same as that used by the di'fendant in the action, Held, that after the lapse of so much time, the affidavit of a single witness that the pat- entee was not the first inventor, would not outweigh the oath of the patentee, and the general presumption arising from the grant of the letters patent. Voof/wvrt/i V. Sherman, 3 Story, 171, 172.— SroKY, J. ; Mass., 1844. 14. The obtaining a verdict by a i)at- enlee in a suit at law against a person in- fringing his patent, is sufficient cause for granting an injunction till the hearing, against another infringer. Orr v. JiWWi ■•.•f<^ ■':^K^ ^^wWvM "«i^ j m4^ *»?;?te^.)'^-' **.<■ i !s; no2 IX J UNCTIONS, B. 2. b. VilKLIMINAUr. JlKillT TO, rilOlt KXCLL'HIVB POHHUWIO.V, XTC. "«»>•' >^' tioii WHS |>ray<'(l nnd Uio originality of the iiivi'iition was ilciiiol, ami many atliilavitH ivad in Nniiport ot'Hiieh doniul, iiml It also appeared that there had heeii three trials at law upon the question, in which there had Iteen a verdiet in favor of each party, plaintitV and defendant, and a divided jury on tho other tri-il, J/rf)f, that the t liy the defi'udants, ainl tliat an i>siu' shoidd be made up and preseiiteil f >r trial Itefore a jury on the (luestiou of orij^inaiity and infiinifcuiciit. Afle/i v. S/>nif/in'^ 1 Ulatchf., r)(J7, 50H. — Xki,S(»v, .r.; N. Y., 1850. 32. An injunction will he refused if the verdicts establishinj? tho complain- ant's title have been obtained on such inconsistent and contradictory claims, or have left the plainfilf's title in such a doubtful shape that the court cannot say with certainty what is, ami Avliat is not an infrinj^emont of the patent. Par/cvr v. ^eurs, 3IS. — Guiku, J. ; l*a., 1850. 33. An injunction will also bo refused where possession is very vaguely stated ni the bill, and is met and avoided by al- legations and proof of a mure j)c.iceable and exclusive possession by the defend- ants. Ibid. 34. On a motion for an injunction, based upon prior adjudications in favor of Ins patent, the defendant m.ay show tliat the title was not fairly in contro- Aersy in the cases which professed to try it — or that some material fact was then unknown, or some opposite argu- ment overlooked — and the court, if satisfied that such was in truth the case, "would not hold itself concluded by the former adjudications. Parker x. Jirn f .MS.— Kank, J.; I'a., IH50. 35. Hut the considerations wliid, would justify a judgt" in renewiiit; tlic discussion of a patentet''s title iil'hr solemn hearing and judgment at law shoulil bo such as, if presented to \\\^^ view after a trial at law, would liavo induced him to set aside the verdict, Ibid. 30. \Vhe"o tho evideneo shows that the defendants are infringing some of the claims of a patent, and the piaiiititl' has had a verdict at law upon his pjii. cut sustaining such claims, an injunction will be granted before fimil heariiur, a|. though it may bo a question wlicilicr another claim in the same patent, thu novelty of which is disputed, is valid. Colt V. Young, 2 Hlatchf., 472, 474.— Nki.sox, J.; N. Y., 1852. 37. When a patent has been granted and there has been an exclusive j)ossi's. sion of some duration under it, the court will enjoin, Avithout putting the party jjreviously to establish his riyht at law. Foster v. Moore, 1 Curt., L'8ti. — CuuTis, J. ; Mass., 1852. 38. It is not possible, however, to fix .any precise nundier of years iluriii!; which exclusive possession nuist have continued. Ibid., 286. 39. And the acquiescence of the pub- lic is entitled to more or less weigiit, according to the degree of the utility of the machine, and the number of pur- sons whose trade or business are afieet- ed by it. Ibid., 286. 40. An exclusive possession of about eight years, under a patent for a useful machine, which affects the trade aud business of large numbers of persons, and many of which machines had been constructed and put in operation in different states, is sufficient to justify N ^•^^. INJUNCTION'S, B. 2. b. 309 PHBUMINAKY. RrOIIT TO, FROM KXCI.imiVI POHMKHMlOy, RTC. .'nulling? iiii injuiiclioii, bt'tbro rofjiiiritiij the tilaiiitin' to l)i'iii)r iiii nclinii at law. //W., '1>*^\ '^H7. 41. r|>**ii >i motion fur u pri'litniiiary iiijiinctinii, a vi)rtli(rt in favor of tlic l<|iiiiitiirH ill anotlicr action, but against (lill'iTt'iit laiiitiir, an injunction will issue. St. John V. PrentisSy MS. — Nklso.v, J.; N. Y., 185;). 42. Although on a motion for an in- iiinctioii, it ai>|K'!irs that on a trial at law as to tho question of infringement there liad been a verdict in favor (»f the jihiintitf, the court is not bound to adopt the verdict of the jury, so found, but will examiuo the whole case, including the evidence given before the jury, and will "iiiiit or withhold tlio injuiu-tion, ac- (oiditig to its own jtidgment therein. Si'i-lcs V, Yonn'js, :\ lUatchf., 297. — Nel- 6ox,J.; N. Y., 1855. 4;i, In this case, notwithstanding the wnljit of the jury in favor of the plain- lill, the court decided that tho defendant ilid irnt iiifiiiiii;o, and refused tho injunc- tion. Ui'ul., ;t():i. 44. If a patentee has establislicd his title under his original letters patent, he is entitled to a temporary injunction un- der an extension of such letters patent, witliout a further trial at law. Clum V. Bmcer^ 2 Curt., 617, 618. — Cuktis, J.; 3Iass., 1855. 45. Tiiough, strictly speaking, tliere can be no possession of an exclusive right to an invention before the date of the patent — because the patent grants that right, yet, under our patent laws, the inventor may make and sell his in- vention for two years before his patent, and tho public may acquiesce in his claim ti I It! «!!, m thfR" is u liill of i>xi't'|itii>tiH :ui(l ii writ «>t' error siiimI out, cniiiiDt Im
  • 4|iii;{nis|i- I'd from :i verdict wlicr*- tlirrc is ti iiiu- tioii for a new trial. KitluT may lu' diMrcgurdetl by tlu« judye, if liis ('((ii- HciciK'c iH satislii'd, tlioii^li ordinarily iK-itliur «lioiiid bi'. J)iiif V. ///'- on the law and the evidence must de- termine his action, and not the judgment of the jury. If/id. r»3. Wher(; the plaintitr's title has been finally established at law, he is en- titled to un injuiu-tion, whatever may be the eflect upon the defendants as to Btopping their works, and throwing their employees out of employment. Forhush V. Bnulj'onl. 1 1 Mo. Law Itep., 472.— CuUTis, J. ; ]\Iass., 1850. 54. ]iiit where litigation is not in fact terminated, but a bill of exceptions lias been taken upon a trial, resulting in favor of the plaintiff, and the result may be adverse to the plaintiff's title, it is necessary for the court to contem- l)late tliat as a possible result, and look at the consequences, in that event, of al- lowing or refusing the uijunction. Ibid., 472. 55. Where a patent has not been es- tahlished by a trial at law, nor its use been acquiesced in by the public, to au- thorize the issue of a provisional in- junction, the right of the plainliir ii,ii>t be clear and fre«' from doubt, ;iiii| il,,, violation fin the part of the dil\ii.l„„i nuiNt bo ecpially clear. Ni>tth v. ,/ok,„. 4 Illatohf. — Imiicuhoi.i., J.; \ v 1857. 5(J. In (»rder to justify the issuiiipd an injunction to restrain th(> inliiiiL'i'. ment of a patent, it IM not neceKNurv that the validity of the patciif sli„„i*i havi! Iteen established in a trial at law • the chief use of it having Ik-cm n(i i.s. tablished is to show, where the defciul. ant denies the invention of the palentrr or elainiM that the invention was known and used more than two years lut'oi,. the date of the application, that there is no foundation for such ilenial or claim. SkklcH v. Afifc/ifll, ;< lMat(;lif., £52.— I.n- oKusoi.i., .1.; N. v., IH.")?. 67. Where the patent has been in use a nund)er of years, and there i» no denial of the invention of the patentee, nor any jtroof that it had been nsid for more than two years before tlio a]i- plication for a patent, an injunction will be granted without such trial. Jhld., 5.52. 58. Where upon a trial in a former suit between the plaintiff and another defendant it had been deterniiiied that the invention used by the defendant in that suit "was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent, although such use was under a patent, and the thing used by the defendant in the jiresent suit was admitted to be the same as that used by the defendant in such other suit. Held, that the former adjudication as to the question of infringement was conclusive, and that an injunction would issue to restrain such use. Ibid. 59. Where a patentee had failed to sustain his patent in actions at law brought under both the original patent aud its reissue, and the patent had not in'ji:ncti()xs, ii. j. /,. 305 nuctiMiMARr. Hiuirr to, muM kxcxuhivk ruHMUMtoN, ktc. bi'flit at>quii*Hou(l in by tliu public, but tlio ii;,'lit of ill*' |iiit('iit«'«' wiiK conli'HttMl liv ililli'n'ul |K'is»»iis, JJihly tliut uinliT Miu'li ('ir(-uiiir aMsumptiiin that hiit chiim was well foimded, and there being also s«iiiK! doulil as t«i the sufticiency of the Hpuciti('ati«)n of the patent, tin injunc- tit»ti wait refuHed, and the partieH Kent to an action at law. Jfusruu //air Co, wAniir. Iliiir Muinij'. Oi., i Ulalclif.^ ll.vi.i,, J.; ,N. Y., iHiH. 0;>. Where there huH been no adjudi- cation UH to the valhlity of u patent muh'r which a party claims, such party must show that he has had exclusive possession and enjoyment for some time before a preliminary injunction will bo granted in his favor. Mitchdl v. /tnr- rl)ii/, !MS. — Siiii'MAN, J.; N. Y., iHOd. 04. The jtoMsession and enjoyment of a patent, which will justify a «'ourt in granting a preliminary injum-ti >n, pre- vious to a trial at law eslalilishing the validity of the patent, must be Non»e- thing more than the mere holding ol the parchment, or muniment of title, or experinu'nting with the patented article. If it is a nuichine or tool it nnist bo brought into use — if a process, it must be put in execution — if a composition of matter or patented article, it must be put on sale. This is the true doctrine both in England and ui this country. I/nd. or). The bare holding of a patent and an infringement alone constitute no complete ground of relief, at least by preliminary injunction. I/u'd. CO. llelief by injunction is never grantt'd as a matter of covnse, nor on merely filing a bill and producing a pat- ent. The j)atent itself, though in certain sense prima facie evidence ot the validity of the grant, is never suf- ficiently strong jt)er ae to warrant relief by injunction. Toppan v. National Bank Note Co.y MS. — Shu'max, J.; N. Y., 1861. 0^^ ■ W • \m^ i hi ^Ai is^ wui'^i-i-fyUifl' "*^***WW! «^' . i i i 1 i i -w^%$ 1-;...:'^ 806 . 1NJUXl^(1R Of, ■■>ir^ 111 11 07. In onliT fo ohfrtlu mu-h rclU'f tint titll) «>(' »lu< plltl-lllcc InlINt !lhV!l)M III' Mlmi^^thcrifil by cxt'liiHivu |MiHM!HMioii lor HOiiii' pfrUxl of tinif, or \ty an udjii- iliialioii ill vvliifli tlii< v:tli that (■xdiiHivo po^. Ht'HNiori for u tiinu Htrcn^M lions tiiu titlo of a patcntcv, is foiiiidril on tliti idea that as it. is a ciaini of ri^dtt adverse to the pulilic, aiitl the pidilic ai'ipiiesee !ii that elairii, such ae<|nieNcenee raises u presiiniptioii that thu claim is good. Jfmf. Ui). Hut thu usu must have been a puhli'i; use, under an avowed eliiim of rij^ht to a patent otherwise; there is no ex< lusivo possession as (n/itinKf the pub- lic, and no ehiiin in whicii the public can ae(|uiesee. A secret use, away from the eye of the public, sweeps away the ground of exciusivi' possession and ae- (piieseeiico of the pu!)lic. Ifjid, c. Security ou Urantiugiorin Plitco or. 1. Tf an injunction will lead to seri- ous injury in suspoiitliiiij; iho works of the defendant, the court may recpiirc se- curity of the complaiii.uit, to indemnify for such loss, if the [)atent is avoided, or can make an order to expedite a final liearing and ilecision. Otr v. Littli'Jleld, 1 Wood. & Miu., 20. — WoouiiuuY, J. ; N. ir., 1845. 2. Where an injunction liad been granted against a])erson for an intVingc- ment of a patent, and while such pro- ceedings were being taken, a third party, with full knowledge of all the circum- etances connected with such injunction, became the assignee of all the rights and interests of the person first enjoin- ed, Ileldf that such assignee stood in the light of the other's substitute, and that he could not ho allowed, by gi\iti;j security and keeping an mcoiini, to eontimie the biiitinesii till liiiiil luMrintr but that an injiiiictioii wmiM i^yn,, against him. J'arkhumt v. Kinmutin 2 nialchf, rtj, H2.- HiciTs, .!.; \. y^ |H»H, ;t. Where an applicatirm was iniul,. for an injiiiiction to restrain the u^e of certain telegraph instruments, in umi 'upon an <'Xtenr^iiti of |Mfimiiiry rff»|Min.-«il»ilit)'. 7W»cy v. fofnyy 'i niatchf., iJ"l».— Nkij*on, J.; N. Y., IH.-Jl. 7, Wlicti a Mil was filrd for an iiijiiiu'- tinn, t'i>iiiiiiilaii( liatloiily constt-uctcil oiii> niBcliliii' for liis own iist-, and It waH not nuj^f;r?«t<'il lliat In- was aliout to oon- itruct Miiy othor inacliint', tho court rc- (|iilrt'(l tho (U'fcriilant (o k«'rp an ar- ('i)iiiif, ami fill' a bond wiMi Kuflicicnl fiiirt'tit'S to pay such Minns as should linally ))(< dt'criM'd against him, or t hat in- junction should issuo. /'oHd r v. Mtnnr, 1 Curt., '.'ICJ.— C'riiTis, J. ; Mass., lHr,i>. 8. If \\\ii plaintiff is iiiailc secure of receiving; all the profits, which may ariitc from the uho oi tho iimcliint> until a final hcarinj^, ho is siiilicicntly protect- ed in case the infringement \a proved. Ib'uly '-'!»;». 0. Where a plaint iff, upon lull filed, asked a preliminary injimction against tlic defendants, restraining the use of j)l:iintifrs nuichine, and the «lefendants justified their use uiuler certain agrei'- inentH of the patentee, hut omitted to bIiow that they had performe. v. Sand- ilnsim, ;i IJiatcht'., 1H7. — Ikrrrt, .1.; ,N. V., t».')(. II. I'pon :ipplic!ttions for injunctions there is much latitude of discretion. The application may ho granted or re- fused unconditionally, or terms may ho imposed on I'ither of the parties, as con* ditions for making or refusing tho «)rder. Forhunh V. Jini ■^ .ITM :'^1S|H yLoi -J^ . ^- "^^ »^ k -nZ jE , "-^s^^ijMi Vp** ' ^^^flVvrt " w ,^ "^.^ 'tW 3^1 ,;Vi^c 1^ ScF i2''/wU 7T?i;> ^s SM INJIX'TIONH, II. «. a. I'I(IIII4IM«NV. l*MA<*rtrH UK NlVTIDNN roN. Iltl All NiViMint or Ki^i'*)f H«>«;••* ni'iriiiii^. Tuthiim v, l.i>y>htr, 4 IHiilihr., V, C— Niii.«ri'*| llirili'lcinliiiil tit ki'i'|iiiii iiiTiMiiil <>r nil I lull hi> iniiniirui'tiii'cii nml pimM. (lOitihf'nr V. />nnf>iir, 'A Willi, .Ir. (tiuKit, .1. ; N. .1., IHiil. J. rrAftlttt on UotioiiM for. I. Till' pnii'lico (irili(< ritiirl in t'«|iiily tipoii iiioti«iiH tor an iiijiiiii'lii>ii, is to ;;raiil iiii iiijuix'tioM ii|miii tlii> Hliii;r nl' till' Mil, Mini iii't'ori' 11 trial at law, il'llu' Mil Mtiiti' II cliMir ri^lit, iiinl \n vrrilii-il l>y alllilavit. li*ii(V'n\. f 'oo^ht, I WiihIi., 'JilO.- \\ AHiiiMiniN, .F.; I'll., IHJI. '1. It' till' Itill Htatrs Mil t'M'luKivo pos- NcsHioii of till' itivcntioii for uliirli tin- ]llMilltitr llMN oIltMilKMl II pMtl'Ilt, till III- jiiiiflioii i« ^raiiti'il, altlnMiujIi tlio court may led iloul>ts as to the xaliility ol'tlii' patent. //'/ii/.,'H\\. A. Ill iiii tipplic'ilion for an iiijiini tinn made by a patentee In ri'Mlriiiii the it). iVilij^emeiit of 11 paliMit, It should n\<\r h' . patent, ami the bill mii> time he a^ks fur the relief souj^lit. Sul. lii-ini v. /i,)/f( mere exhihiiimi ol* the patent, and an alleL^atioti tli.it ii, has been iniViiiyetl. The p.ateiit injiv be. Upon a trial at law, prlinn furit evidence of rij^ht, but in order to wiir. rant an interference by iiijuiiclinii, lliiii' oimht to be but little if any ilniiiii in the minds of thu court as to the validily of the patent, especially where the caio rentH entirely upon the compl.'iin.-int's own showin^^ without any oppimiiij; tes- tinionv. [hid, I 17. 7. rpon a motion for an iiijiiiicticin, the plaintiir should subjoin to his hill a special Mflidavit to the truth of the alio- ir.-itions ihereiii, and that lu> was tlio orijiinal and first inventor, as lie he. lieved, of the thing patented, and that the Hiitnu had not been in use or du- scribi'd anterior to his iiivcniioii. A'"//- n'H V. Alihott, \ Wash., 514.— WAsiiiNti- TON J.; Pa., 1825. 8. On a inoliou for an injiimttioii, tliu plaintilV must rest on the case statcil in the bill; tlw ugh he may, by aflidavit-i, ^113 «UZ I);i. U's- I'linll, l.ill :i :illr- III.' III! Ilial ■ -U- />'",'/• rsii- , tlio '.1 in vit.s, INJI'MTIiKSS. II. :.,/. .11H» m*!tt«tW*IIT. MMVflM ON H. 1 1. •'.•4 rtm. tilli iiiori' |tiirtii iiliii it y, timl ii ri'iVn'tin> t,i I'lilliili'riil iiiiilliTN wliii'li t>\|)l:iiit, or wliii'ti li'ii't !•> ^ii|>|Mirl iimi Mlii'ti;;ilM-ii it ; III' iiiity « i» lilt* olIiiH* Wriiy, t'oil- iriiilii-t iiity Hiiiii'iMi'iiiM itiiulo liy iliu ilr f«)n*lniit ill liix illlilin i. iiimI i'IiImt piiiiy tiinv Itiki' iiikI n'liil 1 1 iMiiliivitH itl'iMlMr |..i«inii». (\utfur V. Mtitlfifim, m I.uw |{.|»., 4lft.- M,ui»wi!», J. 5 I'll., \H\>i. I). No iillMikvii ol'tlic i|i'r*>ti)1iiiit iiimI liiH niitwiT ill thin Kliij;i' nl" llif i-!i«i(« in In III' I'Miixiili'ti'il urily an iilliy oilier li'Niiinoiiy, iM In lit' rOIINlili'l'i"! 'I** fViili'liri' In ov itIIiI'hW •mil* n'>y iitolt*'*'" wlilfli It M«>|M ritrlli ri|t|(lyiii({ for iiit iiijiiiiriinii lor ila ih« ;iitv iivi iitii'iii ill I III' liill. 11,1,1 , |i: III, ll*tli«'i'i' ii|i|M':ii'<4, iVuiii till' iilliilu- vilH of llii' piirtii'H or Hitiii'MNfM, Niii'li II M'|iii|;ii:iiii'y ill |M>iiit of tiii't UN iii.'iki'H it iiii'i'^^ary lo )' (III! at1ii'iiiaiil>«, iii> prii- ilciit jiiilf^i' will umli'i'tak*' no ilan^rrniiH an iiii|iiii7 ill llu' llrNi slaj^i' ortlii' i-aiHt'. 11. It' iIk' liill or alllilavitN Niatc any ficlH not ili'iiii'il l»y till' ilt'li'iMl:iiit, or if tlic |ilaiiitiir, ill IiIn counti'i- iiirhlavits, ijiu'H 11 ♦ ili'iiy till' Nlali'iiKiils of till- ill' litiiliiiil, Hucli lUi'tH all' assiimi'il as ji sate linsis for i\ ili>('i'(|ii(.'nt Htatu uf tliu case, thiil., nil. !'.'. Oil a iiiutioii tor an injunction, lliL'i'xIiiltition ^)'^ inoi|<>ls on wliirli llirir imlicH I'onNtnict tlii'ir rrsiK'clivo nia (liiiH's, will not, siifllct! to tnrn tin- M-alc lit her way, without an cx.'iminatinn into llio detail ot* till' roust ruction, coiiiltiiia- tioii, and operation of all their pjirts, l»y npiii|pi'l('iit nu'uhanics. //>/*/., tlV, l;t. The loss of a patent issued iiiuler the act of 170;t, and which is re.piiied to bu rccoriied, is no excuse for delay in iVili^i'lilent ; II copy HoiiM In- \\a full fvU • leiicc of llii> palenlei<'<4 riKliI, a-i Mm* original, or iin u im>w patent l«>iiied iiii' iler llie act of IN.'I?. /AAA, -llN. 1 1. Oil a Miolioii for an injiiiiclioii, if III! ni|>l;iinaii Is I •ave call* \(>r, it sccnis ihal Miich an* iwrr will h" Irealeij aH an answer, mimI not merely as an iil)lda>il. flntni/i v. Iti'kinll, I .Mcl.cail, 'iTti, Ml I, KAN, J. ; Ohio, INI.'I. i:., rioin )} r., ch. 'ii, of the act of IVII^I, and the .'i.'tth rule in eipiily, it on- on an applicalion lor an in* NeeiiiN a hearing of holh parlicH Ih « teiil| lilted jiitiction. 11,1,1., ». in. And atlidavils may he read, oil the part of the plaiiililf, in support of the hill, and in contradiction of thn nil* swer. //inhn,,flf, v. Hull, \ Wood, it Mill., 2'ii. — WooinuMiv, ,r. J .Mass., IHIO. |H. Where ft hill was filed a-^kinjj for .'Ui injiiiictioii M^^iiiiist the use of a patent hilt lately issued, and the answer denied tlio iiHo of it, ttid uIho tliR originality of the inv(>ntion, and such answer was alHO supported l»y several afVid.ivits, the In- junirlion was refused utili! the trial of an issue at law to determine such mat- ters. Ifiiiuy v. SlercHM, I Wood. So .Mill., 2{>2, a05,— WooDniKV, J.; Mass., iHtn. I!). On anaiiplicatioii tin- a preliminary injunction for an iufringi'inent c>f a pat- *♦*■ ••■ m0, -^Wt - ».^ 1^8 fi$0^ ,-,-^ _4%r w III u > m c I I I ; ' Mil h i »'■!! •» ■'H i liiii "H'l ''ill .i|, ■N 400 ^^^Tlr^xTI()NS, b. 2. d. I'UKI.IMISAUT. I'UACTICK OX iiOTlONH FOR. cut wliic'i had been rcissiH'd, and liad bt'i'ii IVcMjiU'iitly adjiidicati-'il ii|miii and Biistaini'd, JJtfd, that thi' court Moidd not, on such motion, entLM-taiii any |iHc;ul, 273. 23. Affidavits may be heard in behalf of both parties, especially in patent cases. This enables the judge to act npon the motion with u better knowl- edge of the equitable rights of the par- ties Ibid., 273. 24. The defendant may be permitted to show, as preliminary to the motion for an injunction, that the bill npon its face is materially defective. Ibid., 273. 25. But the court is not bound, on motions for injunctions, to decide doubi- ful and difficult questions of law, or dis- pute questions of fact, nor exercise this high and dangerous power, if cxeicist.,) rashly, in doubtful cases, bifon. In- of. femler shall have .m opportuii.ty of a full and fair hearing. I'at'hr v. Si, us MS.— (iiMKK, J.; Pii., 1850. 20. The nature of an application fnr a preliminary injunction is peculiiip. It is not a final settlement of the l(.^r;ii rights of the parties; nor do they cnnu' into court with what are strictiv to In. called legal proofs, but with allidaviN alone, upon which neither party lias tin. right of cross-examination. J>,nj v, lio8. Jielt. Co., ]Mo. Law U( p., ;!;i!i. — Si-XAciiK, J.; Mass., lHr)3. 27. In moving for a itreliminary in- junction, the practice is, that flie com- plainant must file the affidavits upon which he relies by a certain day, ami then the defendant files his afiidavits in reply by another api)ointed day, ami this closes the evidence. The coni|iIain- ant is not entitled, as a matter of rii^lit, to file further afiidavits in answer to those of the defendants. Ibid., X\\. 28. "Whether, in a case of entire sur- prise, the complainant miglit not liavo an opportunity to reply ; query. I/tid., 331. 29. A mere denial, by an answer, of the equity of the bill will not prevent the court — at least in ttie first circuit, since the decision of Poor v. Carkton, 3 Sumn., 70 — from looking into the law and the facts of the case, on a motion for a speci.al injunction, and granting or refusing it, .iccording to its discretion. Chan V. Brewer., 2 Curt., 518. — Cuktis, J.; Mass., 1865. 30. If the right to a temporary in- junction depends on the construction of a deed, the court v> ill construe it and act accordingly, whatever view of the question the answer may have preseut- ed. Ibid., 519. INJUNCTIONS, ». 2. e. 401 I'UHI.IMINAUY. CONTINUANCK, OK IHSSdHTION OF. ai. "riulor rule 107 in equity, and the •iini'iKliit »>'■>' rulo of jMay, 1840, the court, or a ju(lj;o out of court, has imWiT to |»t'rinit the i)hiiiitilF, on a uio- tidii for an injunction, w lu're the dcfcnil- jints Hct up a license in defence, to ))ut in prool's in rebuttal of the ju-oofs put in by the defendant. Dsion for some years, and had reci'ived ( )nsi(lcralde sums for sales under his patent, and had obtained a Judgment in a suit at law, though the athdavifs olferetl by the d"(\'ndant were sufficient to render the result of a trial dt)ubtful, a tenqtorary injunction was continued to the hearing, it also appear- ing to the court that the piniiitilV would sutler great injury from a dissolution of it. Ibid., 408. 4. An injunction granted on an orig- inal patent, will not be continued as to the amended patent, issued on the sur- render oi the original jjatent, without a supplemental bill. Wuodworth v. Sfo)ie, .1 Story, 750. — Stouy, J. ; ]MasR., 1 845. 5. Where an injunction had been granted on a bill tiled for an infringe- ment of an original patent, and ])ending the proceedhigs the patent had been surrendered and a new or reissued pat- ent taken, to which proceedings the parties to the suit had consented, and '.t was moved upon a supplemental bill to continue the injunction as to the new patent, Held, that the injunction already granted (suj)posing botli patents to bo for the same invention) wn^jiriituifacie evidence of an intended violation, if not of an actual viokation, .and the in- junction was ordered to stand contin- ued as to the new patent. Ibid., 753, 755. C. Where the bill or affidavits of the complainant did not state with certain- ty the infringement of the defendant, and the complainant did not swear at the time of the filing of the bill that he believed he was the original and true inventor of the thing patented to him, and the defendant denied on oath that ,*^,**iV'iWi-. ! kx •' ^^^wwl 'S<^>^. ,. - '*^'**t*?^ !!''^^ !('i •'»:-?'■■ . -'^ a 402 IXJUNCTIOXS, 13. 2. e. A ,:-"^t '■**!.*rl%>' f>J I •It?- li,. oJ ^-'^':C';j ■■■.. . -h- -.1 v.K,;: 8i linn 'VI ; nil Mi m 'Si: PKKIJMINAKY. CUNTINUANCE, Oil DIHHOI.UTIUN OF. the patentee was the orij;inul itiventor, unci also denied the novelty and utility of the invention, the preliininavy in- jiinction Avas dissolved. Wilson v. Curtiua, 2 West. Law Jour., 611. — jVIiCalkii, J.; La., 1845. 7. lint the injunetion maybe revived on further afiidavits setting fortli the partieulars of the infringement com- jjlained of, and alleging priority of in- vention in the patentee. Ibid., 511. 8. It is not a matter of course to dissolve an injunction on the coming in of an answer denying the ((piity of the bill, if tlie complainant lias produced auxiliary presumptions in favor of his right. Orr v. Littlcjicld, 1 Wood. & Min., 19, — WooDBuuY, J.; N. IL, 1845. 9. It is withhi the sound discretion of the court whether to issue an injunc- tion or refuse it, or if issued, to dissolve or retain it. Ibid., 19. 10. In order to obtain an injunction in advance of a trial at law, there must be proof not only of a patent, but also of some length of use under it, or some considerable sales under it, or some re- covery establishing the validity of the patent, so as to impart to it weight or strength as valid beyond the mere is- sue of it. Ilovey v. Stevens, 1 Wood. & Min., 303. — WoonnuKY, J.; Mass., 1846. 11. But where possession for some years has existed, or there have been numerous sales or recoveries, the court will not refuse an injunction, or dissolve it on a denial of the validity of the pat- ent by the defent'.ant, either through affidavits or an answer, or other plead- ings. Ibid., 304. 12. If none of these fortifying cir- cumstances exist, courts will not only refuse an injunction, but will dissolve •one, previously allowed, if the validity of the patent is denied or brought into doubt. Ibid., 304. 13. An injunction issued on a bill lilod to restrain the use of a patent, and al- leging long possession and Kales uikKt the patent, and that the validity of tlio patent had been supported by sovoral trials, Avill not be dissolved on an an- swer denjhig generally the originality of the patent, and the use of it by tlio respondent, unless the denial is justiticd by something else, or the claim strenK ii junction in patent cnsos, when tho an- swer (luniuH tilt) validity of tlic {latont, ■without sending tin partie.-i to law to have that (|uo.stion derided, is not alino- hite or universal. It is a prat-tice found- ed more on convenience than necessitv, and always rests in the sound discretion of the court. Goodyear v. Aiy, 2 Wall, Jr., 29((.— Gkiek, J. ; N. J., IH52. 10. In the courts of the ITnited St.atus the i)ractice of sending the parties to an action at law is by no means as general as in England, and there arc many cases in which a final injunction has been de- creed without a verdict to establish the patents, thus .showing that the courts of the United States do not always consid- er i' a proper exercise of their discretion to order such issues to be tried at law, before granting a final inj miction. Ibid., 297, 298. 1 7. One of a number of joint tenants in a patent cannot come into a court of equi- ty and assert a superior cjiiity as against another. Nor can one tenant in common enjoin the other from the use or sale of the patent. Cliim v. Jireioer, 2 Curt., 624. — CuiiTis, J.; Mass., 1855. 18. The plaintiff was the .assignee of the Maynard patent for locks and prim- ers, which the defendants, a company organized for the manufacture of Sharp's rifie, applied to their guns without the license or consent of the plaintifT, though with his knowledge ; as to the compen- sation for such use some negotiations had also been had between the parties, but without any satisfactory result. The defendant J had contracted to furnish the British government with six thousand of such rifles, fitted with the Maynard lock. The plaintiff" now filed his bill for the infringement of his patent, asking an account, and that the defendants pay the damages the plaintiff had sustained, and also that the defendants be enjoirinil from completing their contract wiih il^ Hriti.sh /jovernment, until t!.ey s.|ioi,|,i pay a reasonable compensation for tli,. use of the jtatei.t. The dffeiniaiits, in their answer, did not deny the valiijitv of the jjatent, or tho plaintifl"s title Imi admitted the'tise, sotting up tho ihi„q. tiations as to c(mipensatioii, their wil'- ingness to jiay a reasonable prici', and the fact that the contract with tlio l>rit ish government was entered into jn'iid. ing such negotiations, and orti-red to pay twenty-five cents per lock, u.slmI by them, or tho profits which an accoiint ing should show they actually made upon such locks; Held by tho court that tho defendants should bo enjoiiiud from further use of the plaintiff's pat- ent, without first paying for the use of the same, or obtaining the plaintilT's consent, except as to the contract witli the British government, which tlnv should be allowed to complete, and fur- ther that the defendants should not bo permitted to withdraw their offer as to tlie amount they were willing to pay fur their use of the plaintift''s patent. JSmith V. Sharp Rijle Co., 3 Bhitchf., 548.— In- GEUSOLL, J.; Ct., 1857. 19. G., the inventor and p.atentee of a new process for vulcanizing india-rub- ber, in 1844, gave to the Naugatuck I. R. Co. a license to use, Avitli a iaw ex- ceptions, liis Avhole right, granted by such patent, upon the payment of a stipulated tariff. G. also covenanted not to license any other person to use such p.atent, but reserved the jjrivilege to sell tlie right, under such patent, for any particular subject of manufacture for a sum in gross, the said company, however, to have the refusal to become the purchasers of said right at tie stip- ulated sum offered by others, and auy m INJUNCTIONS, n. 4. 407 YIOLATtOlf or, AND ATTACIIMRNT OX. BiK'h Hulo couM not 1)0 msulo to nny other piirtic'S, cxoopt on tli« rufiisul or nojrleot of tho coinimiiy for sixty tliiys after tlic offiT liiul beon iimde to tlioin, to lit'coinc tho piircliasorH, nor then, ex- cent tlio one-fourth part of tho Htipula- tc'tl fluni HhottUl be paid to Huoh com- pany. Tho place of manufaeturo of such company was at Naufjatuck, Con- necticut, but they had a place of busi- ness in the city of New York, whiTo tlicir treasurer was to be found, and who was the aj?cnt of tljo company. There was no regular time or j)lace j»i'e- Bcribcd for tho meoting of tlie directors of such company, who met sometimes at Iliivtford, sometimes at Naugatuck, anil sometinu's at New York. Subse- (uiontly, in 1H47, (t. had an oiler for the purchase of the right, under his patent, to manufacture car springs. He gave notice of such offer to the treasurer of the said company, at his office in New York, and after the expiration of sixty days from such notice, sold such right to E. & C, for the agreed price, onc- quartcr ot vyhich w.as ])aid to said com- pany, through their said treasurer, who received the same, with a knowledge on what account paid, and carried it to the credit of such company. E. & C. after- ward assigned their nght to the plain- tiffs. The Naugatuck I. R. Co., about the same time, assigned all their right under the patent to the defendants, who, under it, commenced to manufac- ture and sell car springs. The plaintiffs filed their bill, asking an injunction to restrain such manufacture. The de- fendants insisted that their grantors, the Naugatuck I. R. Co., had never assent- ed to the sale of G. to E. & C, and that G. had not performed the conditions which entitled him to make such sale. N. K Car Spring Co. v. Union Rub. Cn,, t I'latclif. — Tnoerholl, J.; N. Y., 1H67. 20. Jlrld, iKt. That the payment to the treasurer of such company, of tho oiu'-fourlli of the sum received by such sale, and tho receipt of it by him, and his applying it to tlio benetit of such company, was a legal and stifficient pay- ment thereof to the company. 'Jd. That such treasurer or agent vvas tlio proper jx'rson to receive notice from (f. of any intended sale, and that G. was not bound to give personal notice to the directors, and that the agree- ment not retpiiring Avritten notice, a verbal notice was stifficient, and that such notice could be given at any time. 3d. That it was tho duty of the di- rectors of such company to itiform them- selves of the transactions of said com- pany and tho acts of their agent, and that tho defence could not bo set up that the corporation had no knowledge of the purpose for which said money, tho one-fourth of proceeds, was paid, iind were not bound by it, or th.at their agent had neglected to inform them in respect thereto. 4th. That the transfer to E. & C by G., was a legal and valid license or as- signment, and that from and after its date the Naugatuck I. R. Co. had no right to use the patent for tho j)urposes for M'hich conveyed to E. & C, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunc- tion, as prayed for, to restrain the de- fendants. 4. Violation of, and Attachment on. 1. Where a plaintiff in an injunction suit endeavored to entrap tho defend- ant into a violation of an injunction, JTeld, that the proceeding on the part of plaintiff Avould not, either in con- «i^K i f^ii Ilt< 408 INJUNCTIONS, n. 4. ,11 MHi 'H I- til (I. . la I till:: ^ir: vioLAnoic or, and attaciimknt on. Hcit'iico or Inw, jii«*(ify an attiiclinient, luitl tli:>> tilt' plaiiitin' hIio^I'I !•«' «'li:ir)^(>il with tlic cnxts of till' :i|tplir!ititiii. S/ntrk- UKin V. Jlii/iihiK^ '1 lUatflif., :»(), 31. — JJktih, J.; N. v., 1S4(J. 2. Whori' an injunction was Imniu'cI Against a (Iffcnilant !'('Htr:iiiiiii;r liiin tVoiii iisiii;^ !i ct'itain niacliiiu', arnl at^tTuard 8iicli ilcfcndiiiit leased tlic iiiacliinc to otlicrs, who continued U> use it, l»nt it had never lieen in the Icfjfal possesHion of such (l('!eiidaiil since he w as enjoined, Jfeltf^ on ii motion lor an attachineiit, that the tlefi'iidiuit could not lio r»'j;ard- ed as in coiiteni|it, and that an attach- ment woiilil not issue. SloKt. v. J*((t- ten, (5 I'eiin. Law Jour., l.s!), 1!)0.— IVANK, J. ; l':i,, IHKI. .'). When' a person had been enjoined not to use a machine suhstaiitially like the on<' mentioned in tin; complainant's bill, III Id, th.'it he was j^fuilty .h such bre.'ich, and that such inference or jiiv- sumption arising from it cttiild bi> over- come' liy credible positive testiimmy proving no infringement. //»i(l., fi-j". 7. An injunction al\er it has Wvw once served continues its jictioii until witlnlrawn by order of the court. Mr. Connick V. Jenwu', ,\ JJIatclif., 487.—. r.Krrs, J.; N. Y., IH.'5(J. H. Where an onler granting an in- junction was made, and the writ of in- junction issued thereon wjis not tested till nu)re than six weeks after, and was not served till within ;i few days of one year after the day of its test; //(/(/, that a disobedience of' tho writ wctiilil not be punishable l)y attachment. Find. 0. After such a lapse of time tlic plaintiff should, before using the writ, have applied to the court for autliority to do HO. Ihiih, 488. 10. In order to warrant an attach- ment for a bre.'ich of an injiinetion, the party to be prt)ceede)» "'"^ ''*' '" ■A''- y- f*- /*• Cutnft Co.t MS. -1ni;kii- not cXfiiip'''"! tlnTcrroiii on llu' ^'I'oimil | sol.i, J. ; \. Y., iHr.H. 111. NVIiiTi', tlui-i't'ii', tlu' |tlaiiitin"rt* |>at«>i)t wiiH for tin? U(Hi« of linj'nif, or ilK la. Wht'i'o tlio violiktioi) of tliu in- rytz/r/rA/i^, in tlio viilcitni/.ation of iinliit- nililtcr mill otlin- i^iiiiis, and an iiijuno- lion isHiit'd uirjkliist tli«« ili>fi>nilanlH to rcHtrain their infringing hii*-Ii paltnt, not I'Xt'ini tliiit In' i-* 'k '"^''■" "tTvunt of tliu Ucfi'ml iiiit. //"■''• junction wan llu- ns^> ..f tin. tl.inj,' j.al- ,.„t«lif, that the (ii^'iiifi'i" was i>ro|H'iIy nwi'lr a party to till' itroci't'fling, iukI that an attachnu'nt woulil is**'!'' aKi'i«"*l '''"»• ^'""''• 14. Tin' opt'ralion or restraints of an iiijiinction eaiinot he exteinleil heyond tho nreeise limits indicated hy it. Ihiil. 15. WliethtT an injnnetion will I'ni- linice till servants, aj,'ents, workmen, and employees of the defendant, unless hinrially named ther»'in ; qinri/. Jhil. 10. To warrant an nttaehment for a violation of an inji.netion, the service (if tlie writs should not he left in douht. Wlu'ie the |)laintitf j^'avu evidence of the service of the writs, ]>ut the party pnicccded a,<,'ainst swore positively that ln' liml never hcen served with anysiu-h writs, hut only with a copy of the ordi-r „f the court j,'rantinj? an injunction, Jlld, that there wan so much uncertain- ty !is to service, that the writ of attach- iiii'Ut should not bo j^ranted. Wk!pi>h' i. lldrhii.iDiiy ■[ Jilatchf. — Nklson, J.; X. v., I8r.8. 17, Where the use coin])laincd of was under an ai,'rceincnt with the i)at- (iitc'f, luailc subsequent to the .nllowaiu-e (i the injunction, an attachment should luit issue. Ibid. IH. An attachment .as for a contemj)! for disobey iiiLT an injunction, issued af\er vi-rdict to restrain a defencbint from in- fniij,'inij the jtlaintiff's i)atent, will not lie jrranted unless the alle<;ed violation is a use of that actually patented to the plaintifi', or its evident equivalent ; the injunction issued can only be a broail as the patent. Poppenheusen v. and they afterward wnvil n/mtit <>/ f>r- -I ^^^^~1<^J ^wl '»*.'H,».»^| 'toCC^M k. I 'w*»^.- 117 ii 410 INJUNOnoNS, C. IN IIRM>IIT TO TRAUB-MAIIKII. Itw I ,1 . » l^^H H ^W*/"' ' i • tt^T^ U ^i I"' nn ^w^ iir ^s.. Mr' ^ ^.:' & ' ^^p ^ k .'I. Ami it i<* wliolty initiuiti'riitl wliotli- rr till) Niiiiiiliil«>«N iitiil viiliif with till) riMkl nrlirl.'. /■A/7., '.MIH. 4. Wlifi't' tilt' cntiiplitiniintH, NiilijoftH of < trout Itritaiii, wt'i'u initiiiitHfliircrH of a t'orlaiii tlirt'iid, laltclltMl "TavlorV IN'ruiaii Tlm'ail," ami llu' ilcffnilantM in America man < tact iirctl ami niiIiI llirciil tttampctl, lal)«'llc(i, any tlio ('om|ilaiiiants, //il)f, tliat it waH an 1^ ,iin;,M'nH'nt of tlic rights cf (lie cdni- plninaiil.s, for wliicli t'<|uity wonltl jLtivc relief ]>y a |)er|)etiial injinictinii. '/'hi/- lor V. ('iirjKiiter, n Slory, tno, WA.— Stoky, J.; Mass., iHlt. 5. K(|iiity will tleercL' a perpetual in- junction to restrain the use of anotlier'w tratleinarks, ami will decree an account ns to dania^es, with the costH of suit. CoittH V. Ili)lhrlainant*H traile-nuirkH are Mimclutiil in Nuch a minwicr as probalily todccfivo his customers, or patmns of his trinlc Of business, tlm piracy will l»e ntdbiiiil at «»nce by injunction. //>/)mr, 2 Sand., 8. C, 005.— 1)i;ku, J.; N. Y., 1H41). 11. Kipiity vsill restrain a wron),'(liM>r by injunction, on the groumls of protect- ing a party in the exercise of a lri.':il right, the suppression of framl, aiiil preventing a mischief which otliorv.i.M' might prove irr»'parable. //>///., 000. 12. An injmiction to restrain tlio tin- authorized use of a trade-mark hIkhiIiI lie granti'd with great caution, and is imt to be exercised where the legal riijlit i» disput(^d and doubtful, or ho as to cre- ate a monopoly imjust toward otliersor injurious to the public. Ih'nL, 00(5. l;t. An injun(!tion ought to ho grant- ed whenever the design — whether ap- parent or proved — of a person who im- itates a tnide-mark, is to impose his own goods upon the public .'is those of' the owner of the mark, and the imita tion is such that the success of tho ri'Mfiii- Mitiu't' iniiMt tunuiiiit to II t'iklMv r«>|)r«'iicii- tufioii, I'XpH'MH or iiiiplifti, il«>rii^ii<>il or niTiliiiii!int cannot olaini llit> proH'oiion of ii court of i'<|iiity to r«- ittrain i* fnnnliilfnt \\m of liin trmlf- iii.iik, on tli(» K''"'""l •'illi«'»* of liav'mj,' an I'xt'ltiHiv*' ri^lit hs an inventor in tin* thinj; inanuliiclurotl by lilin, or uii ox- clii)ttv(> ri>;lit, uh antlior, in IiIm label. CnJWii V. Iti'uutitn^ \ Ml- Loan, 617. — M.Ij:\v, .L; I'l'i-. »«'»• 10. Uiit n-lu'f by wiiy of injunction is f^riiiitcd bccauHU of tliu uhu of a nmrk orlaltcl, which rccioinincnds an article to the |iiil)lic to the injury of tin* coin|il:iin- ant; the fraiul ari*(!H from the false rv\\- ri'Mcutalion that tliu urtidu is the nauiu. JbiiL 617. 17. An intentional fraud is not ni'ces- Rary to entitle a pl.-iintiir to |irotcction for a wrongful use of his Iradc-niark ; but whoro thu Haniu mark or label is uscil which reconnnunds the .article tt» till' piihlii' by the I'stablished re|)Utation of another, who sells a similar article, and the spurious camiot be detected from the geimine one, an injiuu^tion will be i^ranted, althouj^li there was no intentional fraiul. Ibid.^ .'ilO. IH. The itlaintifF was a nuinufacturer of steel pens, which were put up for sale in boxes, the labels on which, and the number they boro, indieated the J quality of the pons. The defendant ri'inovcJ from the boxes containing in- furior pens the label properly belong- ing on such boxes, and put upon them the label and number design.ating a bet- ter and higher priced article, and sold them as the 8uj)erior article ; JIdd, that Nuch nets wvre u fraud upon thu public and the plaintilV, and bein^^ a tVaud coupled \«ilh damage, the court would restrain tin defendant. liiUolt V. h'iiih\, :i iMier, tJ'jo, 0'J7. - Kohwouhi, J. ; N. v., iH.")!. lt>. Tin* n'lneily by injunction is in- \ariably granted w hen tht* nature of thu injury is nuch that u preventive remedy is indispensable, and should be perma- runt. //s, if tlu« injured party is obligtul to seek redress by actions to recover damages, there will be no end to litig.alion, and certain and adequate relief would be unattainalilu. //>/(/., 027. 21. Courts of ecpiity do not interfere i)y injunction in cases of \iolation of trade-ni.arks, except in aiil <»f a legal right; if the fact of the pl.iintitlV right in a trade-mark, or the defendant's in- terference with it, be doubtful, the plain- tills w ill be left to establish their title at law. Mcirhmn'k Mamif. Co, v. darner, 4 E. 1). Smith's Hep., aOO.— Daly, J.; N. Y., 18.'i6. 22. It may be that ai)arty would n(»t be permitted to manufacture and vend an inferior article, and put it forth t«) the public as of the Hatnu tpuility and kind as that of another; but whether he could bo restrained by injunction Ls doubtful. Ifnd., :{92. 2;i. Where the plaintiffs' trade-mark consisted of the words " Merrimack Prints, Fast Colors, Lowell, Mass.," en- closed in a floral wreath, and the de- fendants marked their goods '' English Free Trade, Merrimack Style, warrant- ed Fast Colors," and also enclosed in a floral wreath, but lighter and more open than in the otber. Held, on a motion for an injunction, that though there was an undoubted reseniblaiico between the <«%ta >w;. »^'^ *»*»« ^m ... *i-' rfi ..■=!tii II V •'I' It -I ; W If HI h 111 lll«' i»'»> III I'll \i 418 IN.FI'\(TIONB» C. IK NKMfKCT Tl» rNADR MAMII. two, thnt tli«* fHMirt rtiiilil not Hiiy ili.tt tliu onlliiiiry iiitiitM of |)iirfliu>''Lilvi')| hy llio ill li>iiil:iiil>«' IiiIm-I, mill lli.'kl an injiiiiflinii uii^lit imt ti» Im< ^niiitcil ill till' lii'Nl iiiMiiiiici* ; ttiit tli«> liiirlit'M hIiimiIiI Im) li'tl to try tlir i|ii<'Mtii)ii uC actual iiniiatioii. //>/ ri;,'lit to UNO wliifli ift claiini'il Wy tlic |)laiiilil)', it I'liiNt appi'ur tlitit tlid ili'l'i-tnlniit Im m'l'kiiif^ litHi'll till' art icIi-M iiiaiiiir:irlun'i| by fiiin as tlioHO iliiiiiiit'artiii-fil by tlii' (MTHon wliu fNtubliHlii'il till* nri^iiiiil trailc-iiiark, aiiil tint plaint IIV'h ri^lit to UMi> tlic irailf-iiiark imiHt be clciir. .SV/m- u>lv. Ii,r>iii\ Jt ilaib., S, C, lOl.— Da VI KM, J.; N. v., IH.'iU. 2A. All injiiiirtioii iri iii'vcr to bo p^rniit- cil in tli(> tii'.it iiistaiK'f, if tli(> fXcltiMivt* title of till' plaintitr is ilniinl — milrsH upon ixruiiiiilH cli'aily iVivolous — or if it is ilispiitcd. //;/(/., 105. 20. Till' plaintitV, a niMnulu'turcr of watclii's, riaiiui'il tin* rij^lit, as assij^nci', to stamp liis ualdicH with the tiaiiio of one Ibi'i'snn ibiiiillc. Tint ilcft'iiilaiits Holil watclu'Htnaiitifacturcil by Haiii to iTst rain the ili'ft'iiil- aiits from r ••''.. i^' thuorii^'inal artifk*, and thus protect the pluintitls in Hclling the siniiilatcd. IhiiL, 1(15. '11. Whore the powiT of a court of c'liuity has been invoked, it has been to restrain the defendant from niakinir his goods and selling them as and for the goods maniifactuivd by the plaintiff*, on the ground that such a fraud was an in- jury to the plaintiff', and tending to mis- lead and deceive the l)ublic. Ibid., 105. 28. It is well established that a court will grant an injimction against the use by one Iradi'Hiiinn I'f the triiili-innrk of another; mid xiiili proteition vsilj \^, evti'iideit tiM'nterpriM'H iiiidertiiki'ii fur (he purpoMc of affording Mniii-«riiiilaintiff*, arising from long undis- turbed jiossession and use of such trailo- mark, and particularly if such right liiid been corrohorateil by after acts and diclu- ratii^iis of the (k'feiKiants. Ib'uL, 147. IH'I INJUNcrriONH, V. 4U III Wt TO TRAMI-IIAMft 9.1. The |>riiifl|»li'M of till* riiloH ti|ti)ii wlii.li iiijiiii«"ti'>"'« iiri' Kniiili'.l, to Miip- |,ri'44 tiitliilioii') of triiili'-iiiinks iiint iIm> (•xtriil !'• wlii'l" iJ"' ri'lii'l'iH riini«'i|, uro (liMii^tt'il lUi'l ««'H'«''l ••> - h'l nt. Cum., 'ill "'•» ^"'' *""' '*"'** — A/«/r« on In- Jiiiictiom, l»y WntiTMiaii, '.'71 itii''I. /'"■'/., HH. :i4. A IuIm'I nr M-inU'-iiiui'k, wliifli, from itx f^t'iiorat rcNciiilditiUMt to tliiit of the |)l:iitititV, is ciilfulatcil to ini«l<>ai| tht< i)iil>li<', !•> iinliiciii;; tiic licliit' llwit tin- ttrtii'lit to wliirli it i>« ;il)i\tMl urv in re- ality pri'partMl or iiiaiiiitiu'tiiriul l>y tin- iiliiiiititr, Hiiil wlii-ri! tliu imitation \h hi* i'l(iM>, iniiiitti', ami I'xact, as to hIiow tli;it it wax iVaiiifil witli siidi ilt'^ij^n, iiiiiy, ill 11 |»i'o|M'r cast', 1k> it traiiiftl liy jiijiiiiftiiiii. /''ifriili/t; v. U'*///*, i:i Mow. I'r, ;iH*l, :tH7.— DiiKii, J.; N. V., 1857. .T,'). A V!iii:itioii must lie n'^anh-d uh iiiiinatrriai wliiili it rt'i|iiircH a closf iii- upoc'tioii toth'tcrt, ami wliicli can Hcarcf- Iv 1(0 sail! to ilimirii^li tho oiFi'ct of tlu' fiic-Hiinilii wliicli llu! simul;il(!il l.-ilicl in all olIuT rcHpocLs ih foiiml to cvliibit. Ibid., ;tH7. 30. Hut if (i pluintifT coinoH into u court of iHpiity to i-lairn ri'Iicf .'ii^aiiiHt tlio framl of anotluT, ho nuist l>o fioe himself iVoin the imputation. //>/ pur- poMo of palming otV upon tho public ar- lii'lfi of hit. nwu manuliii'tinf or citni- po«ition for iho^o of another, who hitM olitiiincd celebrity or notoriety, the court will not protect him in niicIi u>e, /''fn'i/i/r v. Mmhtiiit, i Abb. I'r., 15". lloi>'KM AN, J. ; N. v., |Nrt7. Mil, Ibit the conduct of the person in- fringing nucIi a trade-mark, lui'i a mate- toriiil iidliicuce. If he han deliberately, without any previous cotmertinii with the particular bu>wuy>* ^L '^4 iU IN.U'NCTIONS, C. 11 • IN RKHI'MOr TO TUAIiKUAUkH. tlioMO iiMcd liy iinothor, and oaliMiliitod to doft'ivo flw |»ul)li»', or fn'al*' the ln'- liot'tlial (lii'simiilalod ailicK-' sold islliul mado Of sold by tliost> «>nti(l('d to mu-li lalu'Is and dcvii-o^. Ifn'if., U. •l;l. All iiiJiiucti'Mi will lti> tx'"""'<'d, at till' suit of a rorim-r partner, against (lie otluM" paitiuT, rostraiiiin^jj tlu' t'oiitiniicd n»o ot' the siijiiH I'ontainiiijj llio old tlrin naino, without lonioviiit; tlio naiiio of till' ri'tiriiii; |>artii('r, or nialxiiiij altera- tion or addition, as to ^ivo notice ol'llif I'lianjxe in tlie lirni. /'vfcrson v. I/inn- y/n-ei/, I Al>b. Vr., ;»!»"). — Mrr«iiKM„ J.; N. v., is:. 7. 44. The old siijns would bo holdiiit:: out to the \v»>rld that the old partnership was eontinued, and nuLrht make the re- tired ]>artner :is a eontiiiiiiii<» partner, it' he sanetioned its eontiimanee. /fn'i/., •\'u A party will bo restrained tVoin tisin<» a trade-mark whieh had been pnv- vioiisiy used by anotlu'r, and iVt^m any imitation of it with only eolorablo dil- foreiieos. Clark v. Clark, '25 Harb., S. C, 70.— MnriiKU,, J.; N. Y., isr.7. 4ti. Any lalso name that is assumed in imitation ot" a prio<- true name, is in violation of the right of the holders of tlie latter, and tlio use of il should bo restrained by injuuetion. Jirookh/'i W. L. Co. V. J/<^s■^/?7/. '2'^ Barb., S. (\, 41H. — 3Invi:Ki,i., J.; X. Y., 1857. 47. The plaint ifVs woro, and had been for more than twenty years, nianufaetu- rors of white lead, and marked their kegs "Brooklyn White TiOad Comjia- ny," or " Co." The defendants subse- quently established the same business, and marked their kogs "Brooklyn AYhito Load nwn Zinc Cjnipani/,''' Jfcld, that this was nn imitation of plaintiffs' mark, with only a colorable dittbionoe, and was adopted to make th»'ir paint pass us the plainlillV; .,„,i that tlie defendants should be rcsli.iinci from using ti;e words <^i»Hfhnii/ »{■ r,i. ImiI that tliey eould oontiniie lo nst< |||„ title " Brooklyn White Koail Ji Vine." //»/re the defendanis ediiiiiMicil tluMiiselvos with the plaintilfs iiitlicluisi- nesH of manufa«-turiiig, advertisiiii; iuul selling pills by a partieiilar name, "Dv. Morse's Indian Boot Bills," aiiil iiidu- eed the plaiiililfs (o expend large muhh of moiuv in ailvtirtising, tfee., siieli |iills, and then, tvlthout notice, sovereil ilii'ir eomieetion with them, and sel up tl.o same business t'ortlu'inselves, I/u'il, iluit such defendants wtuild Im> restr:iiiicil from using the Name name or ilesiirnn. lion in selling sueli pills, as was iiscil by the plainlillV, antl from using any Li- bels or marks so much like Ihnse iiscil by the plaint ill's, as to bo likely to ln' easily mislakeu for them. <\n)is(()r/i-\. ■l/oo/v-, 18 How., Br., 4'jr., 4'JO.— Sini- Kiji.ANi), .1. ; N. v., 18(10. 4H. A court of oipiity will not iiiu>r- fore to protect a party in the use o( lrad»'-iiiarks whieh are employed tode- eeive the public, and to dei^'ive them by fraudulent reiireseiilalions eontaiiied in the labels ami devices, wlreli me claimed to constitute wholly or in imrt such trade-marks. Ifohbs v. /•'nincdin, 1!) How. Br. Bt'p., 671. — Boswouni, .1.; N. Y., 1800. riO. Whore the plaintill* luaiiufactuml a skin powder called " Meeu Kiin," which was represented as made in Ijoii- don, and " Balronizod by Her Majesty the Queen," when in fact it was in,adc in New York ; and the defendants man- ufactured a like article, ropresenling it as "Patronized by Her ALijesty tlio Empress," J/ehl, tliat the court would not grant an injunction ; not out of any pi'Hl iNsrixrioN or maciiinks.— intknt, a. u. 4)A WIIKN ORhKUKII. IIHAHINll or, ON tNrHINUKMKNT, MTn. rciriii'l l'"i" <•"' tlt'l«''i •iri'iiiisfs known ;ih "llowt^'n llnki* l>akcry rHtaliliNlinicnt mm "lldWc'N llakcrT," and I'rnin olliorwisc iisiii" llif naino of llnwr in liis ItnsincHH, so as to iiidiifo tin' |»nliliti to licrn-vc lh;it tlic liusim-Hs caiiicd on l»y liiin waw oHiiicd on l»y tlio plaintilV. Ilime v. Salfiliih 11* •'"'^^■- '*'■• -'>•— lluKI'MAN, .|.;Siiii. Cl., N. v., IHCO. INSl'KCTION OF MACllINKS. 1, On a liill filed for an iiifVinL^eincnt dt' u patent and for jin iiijiinetion, if the ilct'eiiilaiilH rel'iise to allow (lie plaintillH to I'xuinine tlie niaehineH nwcd l»y tlieni, llio court Mill order an inspeetioii of tlu'inasto whether they are an infriiiffe- iiu'iit upon the plaint ilV's invention. Sloat V. l\ittrii, 24 Jonr. I"'r. Inst., ad Ser., 2!).— Kank, J.; Pa., 1H52. ii, In thin caHC the court ordered the ili't'cndants to run thoir niaehineH, in the prcsiMice of noi-.io expert, antl (hat sneh (■\|itrl 1k^ allowed to brinj;- into eoiirt speciiuuns of the work produced. /&«(/., INTENT. A. Patkntadiutt of 415 II. llmUlNlJ or, AH Til AllVNIMtSMIIINr, iNKIllNOKMKNr, KTd 4|5 \, I'ATKNTAnil.lTY oK. See I'lruiMiHK. IB. ISkAKINO ok, ah to AllANI>«lNMKNr, In Fill NCI KM KNT, K'K!. 1. The intent with which a work in repriii(ed, cannot lie tahcn into consid- eration, as (he act of reprinting is pro- hilii(ed l»y (he H(a(n(e. Nirlntln v. liny- ifhn, :i Day, ir.H.— Cchiam ; ('(., Ihoh. 2. To cons(itnte an iiifrin^eiiient (lin ni.-ikin^ iiinst ho with an inleiit to in- frinj^'e the patent-rijiht, and de|»ri\e (ho owner of the lawful reward of his dis- covery. Kiiwhi V. (Inihl, I Call., (87. — Stouv, .1.; IMass., |H|:;. ;i. No man is (o he permitted to lio hy for years, and then take out u pat- ent. If he has been pracdsiiiij his iii- vendoii with a view to improve it, that will not prejinlice. i'.iit it should al- ways he u (piestion for (ho Jury, what was the intent of the delay of the pat- en(, and whedier (he allowiii^^Mlie inv.'ii- tioii t(» 1)0 used wi('iout a pjiteiit should not he, considered an ahaiidomneiit. Af4. — Thompson, .f. ; N. Y., 1824, 4. Tliou(;h tlie inventor may not have intended to f,nve the henetits of his discovery to the ]»nl»li(r, nnd may have supposed that by ^ivini; permis- sion to n particular individual to manu- factur INTENT, IJ. UKAItINU OK, ON tNKKIMIIMKN T, KTO Pt'lllHtrk V. DiuliXJtir^ -W'ASUIMiTKN, J.; I'll., •* u i' |th IP t)f tiu' |»iii>ru' 4 Wash., 514 1825. 5. The (nu'slion of abaiuloiinu'iit (Iocs not turn U|M)n tho iiitoiitioii of tho iuvt'iilor. AVhatcvor may bi; his iiiti'iitioii, if he siiHi-rs his iiivi'iitioii to p) into juiblic usi>, through any means whatever, without an immediate a.'tser- tion of his right, he is lud entitled to a ])atent, nor will a patent obtnineil under hueh eireumstanecs jiroteet his rijj;ht. ISIiaio V. Cooper, 7 l*et., 323. — McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1833. 0. Intention eamiot be taken iiito view in reference to an infiinb V. Powers, 2 Wood. & Minn., 524. — Woodbuuy, J.; Mass., 1847. 8. The intention Avith wliicli extracts from a work arc made, lias no bearing upon the question of violation. Tho in- quiry is, what effect must the extracts have upon the original work. If they render it less valuable by superseding its use, in any degree, the I'ight of the author is infringed ; and it can be of no importance to know with wh.at intent this was done. Story''s J^xrs. v. IIol- combe, 4 McLean, 310. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1847. 9. The question of infringement is one irrespective of tnoti'ne. The dclVii,]. ant may have infringed without iiiii.n,]. ing, or even knowing it ; but li<> is imi on that acc(Muit tlu' less the iiifijiii^r,.!. Piirkrr v. llidmv, 7 West. Law Jour, 42(1.— Kane, J.; Pa., 1H49. 10. An intentional fraud is not ncrcs. sary to entitle a ))laintitf to protcctidi, for a wrongful use of his tiadeiiiiiik, Ciifft'CH V. Jirunton, 4 JNlcLean, 510.-- M« Lean, .F. ; Ind., 1H40. 1 1. The intent not to injure in llic in. fringemenl of a patent, as the making of a niiichiue by a person ignorant u( the existence of a patent, never exon- crates from -dl dam.-iges for the ;i(tii;,l injury or "iv • ' «hment, though it iii:iv mitigate them. Jlofjf/ v. A)utr.soii, U IIow., 008. — WooimcuY, J.; Sup. ft., 1 850. 12. The mere use or sale of tlio in. vention, however, within the two yens, will not alone or of itself work :iii abatulomnent. The use or s.ile iimsi be accompanied by some dedanitiims or acts going to establish an intciitidii on tlie part of the inventor to give to the public the benefit of the iniprovc- ment. Pitls v. IMI, 2 lllatchf., 2:3:. — Nelsox, J. ; N. Y ; ■ .'< * . 13. The mere cxj .>< of an inten- tion not to take oui ; ,»r' nt, or the mere declaration of an ii , ,tion to deii- icate .an invention to the public, cannot be regarded as equivalent to an actual dedication. Ibid., 238. 14. The use by a defendant of a trade- mark belonging to the plaintiff, even without fraud, renders him liable; it matters not whether such use be by fraud or mistake. Davis v. IlcikMI, 2 Drrffee, 11. L, 570.— Gkeene, Ch. J.; 11. L, 1853. 15. If a machine is constructed so as to conform in all respects to the de- INTEKFEUENCES, A. 41T WIIKK ARISR; NATUliB Ot. gcription in a piitont, iixccpt as to one niii'lii'"''"'' *"' '"* '" '"'*' '"•'''<"' '""' *■'• fi'ft yi't i"* ^** foiistniclcil junl i/ifni(fi''""'>P^'' is wortli any tliin<;f, no nicro evasion (ilioultl l>« eonnlenanced. Perfect iden- tity is "ot re(pnre»l to demonstrate an infiiii.iionient of prin<'iple. /'(it/t; v. Frr- ry, MS.— Wii.KiNS, J.; Mich., iH.iT. 10. The riglit of a phiintitV to main- tain an action for a viohition of a trade- mark (hies not depend upon the inten- tion of tlie defendant to approi)ri!ite Biu'Ii trade-mark (violate it), it is enoiij^Ii if it i8 made to appear that lie has done 80. Dole V. ASmit/ixon, 12 Abb. I'r., 2;(8.— lIii.Tox, J.; N. Y., 1801. INTEKFEKENCES ON APPLICA- TIONS FOJi PATENTS. A. WlIKK AlilSE, AND GENERAL NaTUUE OP 417 B. PiucTicK IN Cases or, and Evidence I.V 418 A. When arisk, and Genkbai, Na- TUKK OF. See also, as bearinjj on this title, Equivalents ; Invention, E. 1. A filed a description of an alleged invention in 1802, as required by § 3 of the act of 1793, and took no further step till 1814. In that year li made application for a patent for the same invention, "without knowledge of A's invention ; Held, that there was no lim- itation of time within which a patent 27 must bo taken out, after speciiicatiDii filed, and that the fiicts made a case of iiitt'rfereiice, to be arbitrated under ^ of the act of 1703. .iiio/i., 5 Opin., 701.— Uisii, Ally, (ten.; 1H14. 'J. The Commissiimer has autlu)rity to permit one of two compcling appli- cants for a patent for a similar invention, to withilraw his application, after dccis ion upon an interference, and relile his application, and to declare a second in- terference between such last application and the competing one. Wdifi: v. Jlut f/u'WM, 6 Opin., 224. — Johnson, Atty. den.; 1H41). 3. The i>erniission to withdraw an iipplication in such a Cisc, will b(! grant- ed or not, as the Commissioner m:iy be satisfied. The matter is in his discrc- ti(m, to be exercised when in his oj/m- ion the spirit of the law demands it. Il/uL, 224. 4. The question of i)riority of right of invention necessarily implies i/itcr- fereuce. Jiain v. Morse, MS. (Apj». Cas.)— CuANOii, Ch. J.; 1). C, 184!). 5. The interference mentioned in § 8 of the act of 1830 must be an interfer- ence in respect to patentable matters, and the claims of the applicants must be limited to the matters specifically set forth as their respective inventions. ; an Hill '., M» r.. ( 4tll INTPMIFKIIENCKS, n. I'KACTIOK IN OAHKH UF. 8. WlicTo two separate ii|)])li«vkti(M)s for pati'iits for iinprovciiiciits upon tlie BJiinc tliitig wore generally niniilar in form, and in Honic rtispccts nearly iilen- tical in conHtniction, but the principal object and design nl' eaeh wan unlike that of the other, and the end to be at- tained or effect intended was wholly different, IMd, notwithstanding their general similarity, that the two inven- tions were not substantially (ho same, and that there was no interference be- tween them. O'lili'lly v. Jf^mit/i^ IMS. (App. Cas.) — MoiJSKLi,, J. ; 1). C, 185.1. 9. An interference will lie between two applications, if the same invention is substantially described in the two ap- plications or specifications, though the claim in one case may not be as broad OS the specification. The oath as to in- vention is to bo considered as extend- ing to all described in the schedule. Kin[] V. Gedncy^ MS. (App. Cas.) — MoiwHix, J. ; D. C, 18r)«. 10. An interference may 1)0 declared between a pending application aud an ai)prication for a reissue of an existing patent, but the omission to do so at that time does not take away the right of the I'atent Office to declare such an in- terference subsequently. Jlic/cs v. iSAii- ver, MS. (App. Cas.) — Dunlop, J. ; 1). C, 1861. 11. An interference will be declared, between an existing patent, and an application for a reissue, us well as an original ni)i)Vi(ia.t\on. Snotcdoi \.Pearce, MS. (App. Caa.) — DuxLOP, J. ; D. C, 1861. B. Practice in Cases op. As to depositions in cases of inter- ference, see Evidence, C. 2. As to declarations of parties as to in- vention, see Evidence, D. and E. As to competency of witnesses, ami of assignor of invention, see Kvii»kn( k (J 1. The rule establislied by the Com. missioner of Patents, under j^ 1-' (tf tlm act of 18U9, to be usetl in eontcstci cases, are as binding upon the Coiniiiis- sioner as upon the contesting panics, and while they remain unabrogated, arc asbinjj, MS. (A|i|i, Cas.)— CiANCu, Ch. J.; 1). C, 1841. 2. There is nothing in the laws rola- ting to the I'atent Office, or in the rules adopted by the Commissioner, t<» [ire- vent lum from postponing the lie,inii, 582. 3. Held, therefore, that the acts of 1798, 1803, 1807, and 1808, granting to Livingston & Fulton as jjosscsaora of a mode of ajjplyiiig the steam engine to propel boats, tlie exclusive right to nav- igate the waters of the stsite of Xe\» York, were constitutional ; and that they were entitled to an injunction against those infringing those rights. Ibid., 562, 566. 4. There cannot be any aid or encour- agement, by means of an exclusive right, under the laws of the United States, to importers from abroad of any useful invention or improvement. Such J i aw*'* U-M^ f -'^'^Jm^Hr''^ "II II llli>l iii iftf f'l ■■^i^ '":>-, m III 1 1 I' w I' ■ f! IS St^ Willi I . ,--lll-: ■«(J|il .''Ijiiiii 420 INVENTION, A. WHAT 18: WIIKM PATKNTAOLK. piM'HoiiH nuiNt ri'sort to llio patroict^u of Jlio Htatc jjoviTiinu'iils in wliicli tlic |»<>>v«'r to rt'wanl llit'ir expensive and lia/.anloiis cxi-rtiuns was oiij^inally vosi- 0(1, and in which it Htill riMnains. Ibid., 683. INVENTION. A. WtlAT IS; WHKN PATKVTAni.E 420 B. rKUKEOTINd, oil UKI>l'("IN(lTO I'HAOTIOK 'J2'l Ct OUIIIINAI.ITY AN'I) ruiOUIlY OK -i'i'J n. NOVKI.TV AND UTH.ITY OF I'JO E. IDKNTITV OK 4:15 A. What is; aviikx i'atkntahlk. Soe also, Colorahi.k Vakiations ; Comiiination; Comi'osition of Mat- ter; DiscovKUY ; DouiiLE Uhk; Ef- fkct; Fokm ; Impkovkmknts ; Invk.n- Tou, A.; Maciiinks; jManufactuki:, AuTULK of; Matkkiai. ; ^Feciianic, Skill of ; New Appuiaiion ; Patent, D. ; Pimnciple ; Purpose ; Sugges- tions. As to evidence in respect to inven- tion, see Evidence, II. 4. 1. Whetlicr the mere substitution of one material for another be an invention within the sense of the patent law, may well be questioned ; but there being room for doubt, a patent was recom- mended. Seely^s Case, 2 Opin., 52. — WiKT, Atty. Gen.; 1827. 2. A discovery of some now princi- ple, theory, elementary truth, or an im- provement upon it, abstracted from its application, is not a now invention. Whitney v. Mnniett, Bald., 311. — Baldwin, J.; Pa., 1831. 3. But when such discovery is applied to any practical purpoHc, in the ii,.,^ construction, operation, oretVccts (ifin;]. ciiiiicry, or composition of matter, in,!. ducin){ a new substance, or an old (iiii> in a now way, by new machinerv, orbv a new combination of the parts nf ;in oltl one, opcratinij in a peculiar, licii,!-, cheaper, or «piicker nu'lhod, a new hk chanical emi>IoynK'nt of principle aiiva. dy known, the organization of a ma- chine embodied and rcdnce(| topraclid' on somethiu}^ visible, taujujiblc, vcmlilili, and capable of enjoyment ; sonu' rii'w mode of practically employinjj; Iiuiiium art and skill — it is a "discovery," "in. vention," or "improvenu-nt," witliintih acts of Congress. I/ml., 311, ;)|'J. 4. A change in the position of tlio t)l)erating powers, or hi the thin;,' on which the effect is produced, is of no importance. Such a modification dots not rise to the dignity of an invciitidn, Brooks v. likkneU, 3 ]\IcLean, 202.— McLean,.!.; Ohio, 1843. 5. The substitution of a known me- chanical equivalent, is not an invciitidii within the patent law. Cochrane v. Ill;- terman, MS. (App. Cas.) — Ckancii, Cli. J.; D. C, 1844. 6. The api)lic.ition of the endless screw and lever, which is a common me- chanical power, to a machine to which it had never before been ap]>lied — as to the periphery of a quadrant to move and hold the rudder of a vessel — would not be an invention, although it miglit make the machine better. Ibid. 1. The substitution of one mechani- cal power for another, as a wheel and axle instead of a screw, is a mere formal alteration and not an invention. Blanch- ard'a Gnn-Stock Turning Co. v. ^Yar^ ner, 1 Blatchf., 278. — Nelson, J.; Ct,, 1840. 8. The arranging a number of rollers, 'ii Ii INVKNTIOV, A. 4'21 WHAT M, AND WHIN PATaNTAIILE iicliri;,' ill 1»!"'«. ''"'■ '* l»«rticulrtr iiurposf, iiiav 1"' |'att'iil!>l»l«'. tli(tu>^li a 8ingU' pair ooiiM not In". Knight v. Ihivit, Mir. Put. Off., 1.12.— Kank, J. ; Pa.; IHIO. [(liti'tl ill I*^ coiiibinationH of old ones. Tlic principU'H of iiu'cIianicH aro Ihw, Himpii', !!ii|^- t4#' WIMI IS, «Mt «IIIN I'AIKMTAIIIK .. ^>-< 1H. It {« n ^\i'll NcHlt'.l |>iii)i'i|ilt< tin'if clinii.M- ill (lie Coini of iM.'ii'liiiiiM V (iiiili'NM It )iiirtlciiliir lonii in ^|t<>l>i({l>ll ii>4 llii> iii«>ittis Ity \\liii'li llu' rrtVft .lt'i»«Mil>i't| is jnoiliict'il), or :iii ill toiiilioii in HoiiU' ol' i(M niH'SMiniijiI |iiiil«4, or in till- iiM< of known i\v iii\rii lion. <>' I\i,!h/\. ,l/.>r,«*. Irt Mow., IJM. — Tanmv, I'h. .1.; Slip (').. IM5;i. Il>. Tlif Mil».(iliilion of oin< ntiM'liiin i«':il I'lpiix :il«>n(, iis ;» rod in pliici- t^f iin ontllo'*'* cliiiin, (o iicfomplisli .i like pin posi' itnil with lik«» olVot't, is not llio mili- jocf of :\ put on! . Sfutiii v. (fiintNi\ MS. ^App. C.is.) MousMi, .1.; I>. ('., S20. Wlicro tlio utility ol' a ili.iii^i', mill llio oons« such .'m to show lliiit tlio iiunitivo t';nMiIt\ liiis Item «'\- oivist'il. tlioiiixli in point ol' l;ict the oli;»nvr<' >>;!** tlio iistill ot' ;i('«'iil(Mit, tin' rof !i Mitlit'iiMit iinioiml of inviMition inny ovist. AV, >•.<(>;< «(^ li>i',ir p,l!ti, MS. (App. 1";|S.) MOHSKII, .1.; !>.('.. is:>:>. 'JI. Wlu'tluM- ini iinoiKion is putcnt- aMo is :i inixotl tpiostion ot'Imv iiiid f:\oi, juiil should not in onliiiiiry cusi's ho «Usposotl of ou tloinunor, iiinl without tho intor\ oiition ol' •» jury. 7V( .«*' v. 7V/< //>.<, 1 ^lo.Mlis., li>.— MrAi.i.isTKH, J.; ('ill., Is.-t.N. '2''2. If tho invontii»n nvpiiroil no nioro "skill or insxouuity than that possos.sod by an oniinary moohanio skilled in thohiis- inoss. thoro is an ahsonoo ot' invontivo faoulty, and tho patont is invalid. Ihhf., ft-:. 2;l. An aooidonlal ooinbination of parts, or invontion, but undor suoli oir- oumstanoos that the public obtained no know h'lj^o ol tho pi ill! ipio or irmili ,„. < iVrol of Niit'li ooniltiiiiitii, dm >« ||,,| iiiako iiiMiition. Tho iiniiiilon i^ ||„| initdo iiiiiil iho pailioM roiiliixin^, oi' I bono ob"»oiviii>j;, dinoovolod how it ihiiM bo iiiiido iiMiihiblo Tor ilN piiiliniliii iiin poso. /i'.i/ixont V. MiiijoVy it"!'., <)/' All.' York\ MS, Ilvil, .1,"; N. v.. IH.-MI. 'i\, Mot'oro M piitont otin lsmii<, |||,, tiling piitontod niiixi iippfin to In. ,,| siioh II ohiiiiiotoi' Its to inxolvo onoiiiiiio " inxoiilion" I'or its prodiu'tion, iiijnii,. tho oxoiiiHO of tho ^I'liius nl' nii iimn tor tiM i'oiitriidistin)xuiMhod iVoni llii>iii diiiaiy skill ol* a nioohanio in ooiisiiui tion, lliiif. 'J.">. If, willi tho knowlodm' Iwul In tho publio, it roi|iiirod no invontion, lnit simply tho ordiniiry nkill iiinl iii|ri>iiiiil} ol' tho incohaiiio lo prnduro tho rosi|l| oll'ootod; ill otiioi' words, if lhi< imi'iil ivo laoiilly was not put into aotion, Mini was not iicodod to prodiioo tho ;illri;id invontion, Ihoii tho patinl is void, In oaiiso ihoio is no iiivontioii to bo sriiirKJ to tho patoiitoos. l/iiif. LMt. Invontion, in tho Hoiisoof llio |>!il out law, is th(> lindiiift "Ml, oonlriviii<,', dovisinij, or oroaliiif^ soinolhiiij,' ik'H and iistM'iil, whioli did not o\is| liitiiri', by an oi I'ration of iho intdlool. Ilt'ul. 'll. Tho ri;j;lit to an invent ion ihiti'^ Troiii tho tiino of disoovory, ami lln patontot> is si'onro with his patnii, it' his niaohino or maniil'aotiiro w.'is noi in publio uso at tho tiino ho tiiado his wy plioation. Wiiitenimtv v. linlimjloii, MS.— Wilson, J.; Ohio, jH.^ti. 'JS. Tho iiioro dis«'ovory of a fart, as in Sioklos' invontion, doriviiiff pow or for tho trippinj» of tho valvo from tho occcii- trio strap, or from any othor iiioviii;j j>.irt of tho engine not controlled by tin' ife4^ *%■ ^C i INVKNTION. A. 4«l riur IN, Atll MMKN IMtll>«r%HI.R, lining rnt t ilni'M lltil i'iiIimIiImIi' till' Mill) J' I III i» |>iil<'iil, tlii'iiuli IIm« iii)>n iiiiiv 'I'llC IM«W HV\ III' illl'ltN, ill onli'l Im' IH'W. |l) Ihm'OIIM' |Mllrtlllllll)', miiimI Im> rlllllinl ii'il iiitii uxiKiii)! iiiiirliini'i V iiinl iiili)|il .SnAV. fii \ . //on/i lit. ,.i| I'l |(llirtit"lll IIHf ;i llliilflif., ft.'lH.— Nki.hmk, .1,; N \ IHftll. ■Jll. Il i'' llli*^ t'IMlliiilillM'lll IIIhI (>|iil!l('(iril| |ilM|>nMi>M >(|iii'li riirni^
  • ililii', mill ri'iiilcr lli*> i|iM)ry |)iiti>iil r iililf. //'/ii ri'i|niti'i| iiiiirli m lillli' lliniii'.lil, hIMiIv, III' l>X|M>rillllx|i<>nMi> |m ili'vim' iiml i |iHti>iili<(> il, wiiM iiimliv I'Urlni.^/i V. f'o,)f,\ 10 Mm. Law Ui'|i,, IIOV. -(VllllH, .1.; M IMM, I Mr.'/. :il. Wlii'iM'Vcr till' i'limi|r<' ill |Im« in raiiiri'iiii'iil MJ' II iiiiH'liiiii' Ml' iiivnilioii, ami ilH (•iiiiMi'i|iii>iin'H hikrii iMj^t'lliri ini- cimNiili'nilili', llirif iw Hiiniririn'y i>\' in- vi'iiliiiii III sii|i|iMil II |iiit<'iil. Wlini tlii< clmnCi', /nmunr ininiili\ IiiuIk Im imii m'i|iM'iirrs mill ri'HiillH mI' ^riuit |iriti-ticiil iililily, llii^ CMinliliMii is MiiliHtii'il Imt lidl wiiril IIm' I'oiiHrt/nriiiTH uii< iiirMii- Kllll'lillllr, Jiml III!' ••llJlllJ^I- illsM illCMIIHill- ciiilili'. Wuhfi, Ex piirh., MS, (Ajip. (:uH,)-MoiiHici,i,, .1.; I). <'., IHf.V. Wl. 'V\\v !i|)|iliciiliMn (it* i\ (tiMljiiii roni- liiiiiitiiiii mill ('Miii|MmitiMii mI' i'iiIimI cmI- IIIIIIIH ill HCrliollH (m IKICMIItllM, tO hIiMW U roMHtiiiil, li:ilaii('(f tlii'nior, with Hliito- iiR'iiln of iishi'Ih ami liiiliilitii'H on ovcry pagi' Iff iJio journal wIUimiiI- n'fi'n.'iKr*' to iIk' Ird^cr, \h not, an iiivont.ioii of an art, niacliliiis inanuraclun', or (;oin|>oHi- twn of niuttcr, witliin ^ (t of llio act of 1830 ; it is nolliiii^ nion^ llian a nioih; of prcHcntlng tlic journal entries of a • •I'll Im I iiiMiiiiw-4 in II liilniliii I'liiiii, mil lliiTi liii)' iimI |iitl)'nliilil in r>>H, A> /»<»r/<, MH ( \|i|). Cii...) Mii|iH|i;i.i., ,1. ; h. <'., iHiin. :i:i. 'I'll!' ri'ini'ilviii); of «|i (irH In it iiiinliiiM II > I Hill linil nun I" III!' WMil of till' iiii'iliiiiiii', of llit< Inti-lllt^i'iit oiM't- iilor, mill liiH iiM riiiini'iiiMii with InvMi* II Mil Ml ilini'MVi'i V H liiUlin V. II iin- Jnri/t, MM, NiiHMN, .1. ; N, v., \miK III, An •■x|M'iiiiii'iil MM Im ||ii> |irMi|iic*- tinll III II lllllrllillt', wllirll WIIM IIIINalill- liw iMiy iiii'l liiul I II iiIiiiimImim'iI, \h not Mllrll nil illM'llliMII IIM I'lllilli'M II |II'I'4MII to till' iM'iiilit III ||m> |iiitMil lawM, mi'l Niicti iiliiinilMninent reiiiMvi-H nil iiii|ii'irniii>nt ill llii> way Mf any future invntor wlio iiiiiy I'mIImw ill tln« Hiiiiii' liiMv ////»/, ;ir». 'I'Im- Milaryi'iiifiil m( iIp' Mrj^aniirii- tioii of II niai'liini', cMiiiiiiiri'il with A fiiiiniT Mill', iloeH not afforil any ground ill IIm' hi'Iimi' mC <|ii' piilMil l.'iw lur a pat/- t'lit. l7iil/if>H V. l'iif/>, 'Zi I low., l»iV.— N I..I HMN, .1. ;iiii, (1., iMCio. .'111. 'I'lif inminer of I'Mlilini^ '»"'l f'»'^- ti'iiiii^r llie Niili'M of an envilope to tlio l»ai'k, or till' lia< no I'XiTi'ise of the inventive fa'-uHy it i« a imri' matter of iii(ilrn"il, Olt UKIMinit TO I'HAiiirK; wiiu- ih; nkimniiv or; m K 1*11 lilKNi K IN. I. Tlio llrMi iiiv«>iili«r iH«>iHilli>i| lit llii> hi'MolilM of lii>4 iii\ I'll! ion il' In* ii'iliii'o il |o prili :illil oliliiiu ;i|>iliMll tldTi'lnr, itiiil II "iiUxf"!!!!'!!! itunilor ••niuml, l»y oltliiiniii^ Il piii'iii, oiih| iIio IliMt invi'ii for ol* \\'\n li^lii, or niiiiiiltiin nil tiolioii H!(,'iin'«t liim. ]\',u\,i,;t,k \. I\n'f>r)\ I iJall.. i;ii>, Si.il i>i »!•.,< it is till I tlt(>lll!lMl<, I\,f,f \. i'litf.r, I S|.tr\, MH). SioiM .1.; M iss., ISH. iiMi* tlillKtiiii'ii In iiii;i,.|. liiM lli«> Niiiiii*. /A»)/., Mtii, V. NiMH' III' till' piitiMit ItiWH ri'i|nirii lliiil nil iii\i'iilii>ii •«ImiiiIiI III) ill iiNi, or roiliii'iil III lilt mil |iniriit'«> lii'iuio ih,, iNMllill^ of II |llll«>lll, lltlll'lHixi' tlllMI |,y Il iiioili'l, iliiiii iii^i, mill N|ii>i'illi'ittiHii, iMiitMliiiiii!; It wiitli-n ili>' ri);lit of II |, i<\i<«<|il ill llii> I'liHii of mi uIiom |i;ili'iili<«« rtiiliii^ to |iiil williiii ri^^liirni IliniitliM liis iiiM'iilinii nil Niilr, lhi,l. U< I'MUl'MHIIIII " lI'llllCI'l I I II |i|; lU-l' lloCM lint llll|llirl IHIII^IIKr III) |„. MMitioii into ||M«>, hill iiiciiim I'i'iliii'iiit; it ititll Nlll'll llMIII llllll it IIIIIV III' Ijll'll, NO iH not to III' a iiii'ii' tlicinv, //././. 10. 'I'lio tloi'ltiiu> llllll III' wliii lir<«t i>iii> ;i. All ii'i|»i"rr»'»'i mill iiii*iiin|il<'lo iii\ I'll i'. 'I'l tion, nwiiinj in iiu'iv llu'orj .«i in in! el lii-i'" il l«>«'liiiil notion, or in iini'i>ii:iiii t>\|i«M'i tnonN, mill not iirluiilly n'«lni'i'il to |>r.i('li>'«', mill I'lnliKiliiil in snnii' ilis liui't iMiii'liinovN, iip|i:ir:it<, inminrn*- tiiii' Of t'liniposiiioii i»r inaiiiT, is nol, mill iiitlioil oaniiot In* |viii'iilalili' niiiK'r till' |viti'nt \:\\\'*. I!>l. t. lie is tlii'liist iiiv I'litor in till' M(MiM> of th«' |iati'nt :u'l, anil ontilli'il to a put- out lor liin invention, who han lirsl por- iVrti'.l mill ailapti'il tin* sanu' to nsi' ; llllll until till' iiui'iitioii is so porli'i'ti'il rii,f|il is saxnl 1>}- }; Ift ol" {\w iirl, nf 1 s;l(». /A/,/. I 1. >\'lnit'vt'r llrst pcrli'i'ls a iiiMfliiiic mill ni:il\i's it capaMi' III' nsi>riil itpi'nil I'oniiniinii'ali's an nivi'iilinn in iln lii', mill puts it in pi n'tirc, ninf />• .i„/i/. is I'lititli'il III a pali'iit, is imt Nitppniii'il to it . I'lilli'sl I'vti'iit hv till' i!i Niw, Mill iloi's not apply to a liixl invi'iilnr wim IS iisin^ ri'asnnalili' ilili).r«'iii'i< in ail:i|il- iiiiX aiiil pel li'i'liii!^' liis invi'nlinii, wIhwc mill ailapti'il to usi', il is not iiati'iitahU M In a raiv of ililic'in'*' hctwcon HMI Ill- two imloprnili'iit invontors, lie who is iiitilli'il to a palnil, ami is ihr icil lirst roiluii's his invontinn to a li\»'il, | M-iilor, thniiyli ollu'is iMa\ liave lucvi- positivo, aiiil praetioal lorin, wonhl sooiii oiisly had tho idea, and inade snmc cx- to bo ontitled to a priority ot' riixht tna periments toward putting il in pnitlifc. 1 latent theret'or. if>hf., Mi'.i, (UUI. An inventor who has lirsI aetually vrleeted his invent ion. will not lu'deeni- od to have surreptitiously or unjustly I ]\'in>/ifiiin) V. (ioii/tf, .•! Slnry, l;t;i. Sioiiv, .1.: M ISS. IMII. I'J. StiiiNr, that he would he cntitli'il to :i patent, alt lioujj;li tlui itnteeedeiit I'x- ohtaino'l a patent tiir that whieh was, in i periments of nthi'rs were kiinwn to ami laet. Inst imented liy another, unless ^ used by him in perfeetiiijjf his niaeliiiie. the latter was at the time usitii' reason- ! Iliul,. i;J3. «W^, INVI'NIION. II. 4M PHNriH'riMii: wiur m; DM.Mii'oi'n iNi Nfi'iMMirv »^. |:l, |(t'tlii<'iti|{ nil liivi'iiliiiii Id |)riii' |ilii'iilii)ii til' n |)iitii'i|)li> In |iiiM|iii'ti mi tii'c ilill'i It I'loni III iii|;iii|r il iiilii iHt'. rlli'i I, N iiiil milH< ii'iil to i'litilti' II |iiiily III II |iiili'iil ; lull till' iiiM' ulm III") ri> • «ll|i'i"4 lllii iilt'il Id |i|-||i'flrill il|)|ilii iilinii mill iiNii \h riilltlml I' il |iiit) iil f'UuIti \..S/^Ai/, I llliil.lir., 4)11. NiMMN, ,1.} N. v., I Mill. til. 'I'll I'liiiMllliiitt II jiiiiir iiivi'iid'Hi, lltK |iiirty tilli'U)"! In liiivn |iiiMliiri'il II. IIIIIhI I|I|\I< |IHM<'I>|||>|| MM I'lir UN III llllVII n ijlli'i'ij liJH iili'it III |irilrlirt', iiliij I'lii- IkhIIi'iI II ill Niiiiir (lixiiiici I'liiiii. Ciinln mill iiii|M'iri'rl i>ii|M>i'iiiiiiviiM, (111111111 |in'viill iitniiiiwl nil nriij'miil iiiv i-mIih, w Iiii Iimm |in I'i'I'Ii'iI Iih iiii|iiiivi' iiniil mill iililiiiiM'il II |iiili>iil. f'lirk' fmrif V. h'iiiHinim, I ISIiili liT., KM. • 'riicii' il II" 1'*^^ ii'i|iiiiiiiM; nil ii|i|ilii'iiiil to ii'iliirx liU Iliti'iilliMi In iii'luiil iiMi< Im>- li ri' III* ■'»" <*lil'>i*i It |Mlh'til. Oil llii> nihil liiiiiil, llii' •i*«i> ••! nil iini'iiliiiii lie Inri* nliliiiiiiiiu II |i'ili'iil it* mil' nf llii' 1,'ii'oiMN •'"•' ••'•"""iiiiC '•• /'•»■/■// \. for »,.//, MM. (\|'|' <'iiH ) ('ij,\MrM, I'll. .1.; !».('., IMIV. II. .\m iiivi'iilm liiiM ii'ijiiri'il Mm in M'liliiiii !<• |)iiii'lii'i' uIm'ii Iii< Iiih mm i', mIiIi niii'Ii l|lll^vill^N :iti)| niiiij)'! Il** III • miy imtnimi itfiil/ ,(/('»» t/if lift III iiiiilii' mill iHi' II. Ihiif. |,t, III' IIIIHI hIiiiW IiIm itlM'tlliiill In III' |iriii'lii'iilili'i iiikI IIii< iiimiiii'i in uliirli il MiiiV Ik* IInimI, lull Im< inrij iml iju iImh tinlil hit inM'tiliiiii i>i pn I'li li i|, mnl In- is niiily !•> >i|>|>l,v I'lii' II |iitt)'Ml, III' iiiiiy |iiiM< i'iiiiri'i\t'il IIh' iili'ii yi'iii'^ iijrii, iiiil is lint olili^i'ii III riii'iiiHil iJniwiii^M or iihmIi'I tiiilii III' liiiiki'4 IiIm ii|i|iliriiliitii. HI. Wliiii'ViT liiiiilly pi'ili'clM II mil rliiiic, mill ri'inli'i'M it i'iipiilili> nl' iimhI'iiI i>|ii'riiliiiii, In I'lililh'il to ii piilml, iIhmi^Ii olhi'iN 111,'iy liiiM' li.ni I III' iiji'ii imiiit'4 limy li.'ivo Im'i'ii kiinwii iiimIit u iliU'i'K lit nmiliiiiiiliiiii, or iikiiI I'm- n ijif- I'tit'iil iimpiiMi'. Itiill V. Mitrnj, In rciiii,, 112. — Koiii.;uH, .1. ; Slip. (!l., I'.'i,, IS48. IT. It iH not cnmi^li to roncrivc llir i'li'U III' a iii'W nianiit'ai't lire, or of ;i new :tiiil ilsciul iiisli'illiHiit. Till' new iilrii must lie rcijin'cil to hoiii<> prnrliciil iisn lirjon' it ciin Ik'i'oiiiu tlin Hiiliji'ct, of w [lali'iit, or lie si't. up iiinl relied on to il, it, olilij^reM liini to tiiki' out ii piitinl. It. in till' ijiily o|' ihf jury to liike into eon Kiileriilioii the niiliirn ol' llie invfiilioii mill till' eireiniiHtiiiM'iw oCllin niMc. Wl- u,M V. S./n,,,: ,fT 7'rn,/ /,'. /.' , ',! IMaMiC, tn MM. .too. Nl-.l HI IN, (loNKM.M., .1.1. : N. v., iHr.i. 'Jl. Ill till' ciiHii of mi im|ii'ovi'tiK!rit. ill till' eoiiMlriirtion of cms (or railroailn, /A/'/, that Hiicli I'vpi rinn nts eoiild not, lie mtidn I'.xeepI, liy piitlin;^ the eur into t lie M(/V/., u'll. 2'^. lint if mi inventor iimii-eeHsarily defeiH liis iipplieation for u p.alent.mid HiillerH his invention to f^o into use, ex- eepl for Hiieli piirpoHi'H mid lieyond what lie liiiH reason to lielieve neeexsary for HiKrIi [itirpOHOH, liJM patent i.H void. Ihid.^ 2WI, .'JOO. (Ml .•^1 W-,il( inri ■■•HWA J^«H,i **►' V'^.-' A^ \ ii/Ui>w^ uu^ ., l« I 4tM^'i Ill I I" «4 r % m J-;: 'I « ' » pi I ['III' "*1I 4M TWKvrrov, B. MM^aonilUt WUAf W; nairtHNrH in; HKiKiwiTT or. 2.1. In nnlrr to ontitln n |M'ni»»n tnthp I'liiirmlrr of iiii invt-iitor, nml IiIm iiivfii tloil tt) lH>COt||C> till* Mllhji'ft of II |Mlll*lll, llO lUIIMt ilof NtOpIlt UIIHUCCtiNNflll «>k|li hiH liroii^lit uul u iiiiu'liiiif |)rotlii('iti){ u u<«rriil ri<- itiili, iukI \nthoiit tliiM Ii'm iiivt'titiuii will liu wmililt'HH to (lit) foiiiiiiiiiiit)', tiiitl iiii(|i'Ni'r\iiig lliu protfrlioti of tin* liiw. MfCiirinirk V. Stt/mour, MS.— Nklhon, J.; N. Y., IH.M, 24. It IM wlioh H|i(>('uiiilioii litiM hvvu nMliici'il to |irii('ticf, wtit'ii (>x|ici-iiii('iit tins r«>Hiilii>tl ill i'y, ami wlit>ii tliitt tli.tfovi'iy liiiN l»f»'ii |iiTt'(<(t(>i| \ty ]iiiti(>titaiiil i!<»iitiiiiit'x|ii>riiiit'iilM, wlii'ii Hotnit new roinpoiiiDl, art, iiniiiitUctiin', or iiiiK-liiiic, Init licoii lliiiH protliu't'il, wliirli is iiMffiil to tlic piitilic, thill tli«> party iiiukiiij^ it litu-oiiics a piiiilic Ihmu- faotur, aii(///, 'J Wall, Jr., 2ltO. — (titiKu, J.; N. J,, Ih:)2. '.'5. Wliciv an invention in not of a iiioru pliiloHophit-al Hpociiiation, almtrac- tloii, or ihi'ory, Imt of Hoiiu>tliiii}{ cor- porf:il, (o he iii;iiiiifnctiirf\\ tliat lu' has rciliu-tMl it to practici', othorvviso than by a , „f eoiiipoMiiion of niHlter, In not iKiti'nt able under our lawn. Afurnfin/i \, ,)/„ MS. (App. Ciw.) — DuMLui'^ J.; D. t'.^ IM5.1. !2H. He 1h tlitt flritt hivi'iitiir in i||, MeiiM«> of the patent iietM, nnd entiilnl t,, a patent, who haN llrsl perfnttil ;tri4 adapted the in\eiition to unv, iumI iiniil th(> in vent ion is so perfected and udii|>tii| to iiHc, it is not patunlable. f/iid, '2U, Itiit this poNitioii iit Hnbj«>('t tn tl tiuililieatinii that he who Iid'hiIh tir^f shall have {\\v prior right, if he in i.mh,; reasonable diligence in adapting mni perfecting the same, although tli(>/ic>'ii/i|i;i< perfected his invention, withniit kiidwl- edge of the prior invention, from iT('ci\- ing a i>atent. jri'(Ji>r>nick v. lutduim, Ms. (App. Cas.) — MoiiHKi.r,, J. ; I). C, 1853. 32. Hut where u prior inventor li;i> been using due ililigenco to perfect liii invention and adapt it to practical use, his right AvlU be preserved and protect- ed, although luH sucoesB may not be per- fect. Ibid. 33. A machine in order to anticipate any subsequent discovery must bo per '^^ INVKNTION, H. 437 fnntfffiti'i; Mii«r m, Dii.iiiiiiii ■ i^i , nk< krmty or. fn'ti»«l, tlmt is ii»inl«' •«> «w l«> *M» of iirftiti'nl iiiility, iiml n<»f ln» iiiiTily <•< i,i.riiiniitiil, iiihl iihI in fX|M'riiiMnl. Ji<»rt V. t'mtiTteuutl, MS. SrUAdl K, J.; Mil**., Hft*. .•14. Tilt' ma'iitijf «»r « ilrjiwiiitf of an |ii>i'iiti'»> iiilllt ii'itliv plain to rnikldi' u nlkilfiil iiiTMiin to niaki> tlii< tiling iVnni till* ili'iiwin^, ix Niiflicii'titly rfilnciii^ llii> illM'lltion In priU'tiiM'. Sti/i/lniMnH V. /A»y^ MS. (A|»|». I'liH.) — Minihi-;i.i., J.; I). I'., IM.\». ,'15. An invention !m cnni|ilrt«> whon it In cn|isil)l(< of niu'cumnIuI o|i('i'ittioii. It U not n»'<'«^!|il)iii;,' tin- i)riiii'i|>lt> ftlioiiM litkvo hct-n ilrtiTmiiicil, (ir that tliM invt'ntor Mlioiild In- aware of lilt' full v.'iliu' of Ills iiivfiit' 11. Jlun-iiirn V. HW//»r///,MS.(A|>|». (' I .)— Moi{m;i,i., J.; I). ('., IH.VI. ao. TluTi! iH no oxproNH n'(|iiiri'nu'Ml ill tlu< statute that tli(< applit'iitit nliall ri>- iliu'o liin invention to actual use lielure he ran olitaiii a patent. ShjiluiiH v. SitUnliiiri/y MS. (A]>p. Cu.«t.) — Mok.sk.i.l, J.; I). ('., IHftO. 37. It in not tlio person wlio 1i:im only produced the idea, that is entitled to |iroltcti«>ii as an inventor, but the per- son who has (>ni1)odit>d th(> hlea into n |priu'tit.'al niiichine, and redueed it to Itriictiic. He who Iijih first done that, is the inventor who is entitled to jiro- tettioii. Wituins v. N. V. td Jl. Ji. li., 31 Jour. Fr. Inst., 322. — Nki,son, J. ; N.Y., 1H.-55. 38. Where two persons are botli in- ventors of the same thinj.?, the one who lierfected his invention first, is i)roteeted by the law. Alkn v. Hunter, Me- Leim, :V22.— McI;.;ax, J. ; Ohio, 1855. 39. If an inventor does not use rea- sonable diligence to perfect his inven- tion, after the idea of it is conceived, and III lli«i nifttii lime tiiiolher coiiorivM the ideii, and pcrfeelH thi' iiiveiilion, iilnl praetieally iipplii't it to uoc, the latter Im the tirnt and ori^iiiiil inventor, ami n jMiti'Mt |j;ranled to the furnier will he void, Its not issiieil to the lirxt inventor. limiHiiin v. Min/i>r, «t«'., of X> w 1'>»/'X*, MS. IIaii, .1.'; N. Y„ IH.-Kl. 40. Although an invention has not Keen redileed to aetnai praetieal iinv, yet if it appears to lie rapaMe of lieiiijir HO rediieed, it \sill lie sitllleient (other thiii^^M not opptmin^;), to eiilillo a p.irty to a patnil. C/nnii/lrr v. I.mld, .MS. (.\pp. CuH.)— .MoitsKii., .1. ; I). C, lHfl7. 41. Although an inventor and paten- tee may not havu redueed to praetieal use and operation his invention, lieforu the time the same thin;; iiiav have heen invented Ity another, if at the tinu! of Hiieh siiltsetpient invention, tiu* first in- ventor witH \\m\\* reasonalile diligence (^ 1.'. of lh(! act of \H-M\) in adapting and perfecting the same, and did ath'r- ward in a reaHonahle time adapt and perfect the Haine, such Niilisetpieiit in- vention will not deprive him of the ben- efits se<'iir< I by his patent. /Inrt/iolu- mew V. Smni/irt MS.— Inokusoi.i., J. ; N. Y., 1H50. 42. The p<'rson who is the first to conceive ami give expression to the idea of an invention, in such clear and intel- ligible iiianner that a person skilhil in the business could construct the thing, is entitliMl to a patent, provided he uses reasonable diligence in perfecting it. Eamcs V. Jifr/iiii'ifs, MS. (App. Cas.)— • Mkuhick, J. ; 1). C, 1H59. 43. hy being perfected, in the eye of the law, it is not meant that an invention should be carried to a |i()int where there could not be any subsetiueiit improve- ment, but that it should be completed s-w iP r^-*' ^wUwwCf^ ■'ii-^^ A^t 429 INVENTION, n. I'Kio'KciiNO; WHAT m; kiiuiknck in; nkckwity or. 'im ii Ml »• '> !•■ It! '* 1- HO as to l>t' of .soiiif nr.'icllcMl ulility. It need not l)f of tiuy \uii\\ dcj^roi' — if it is of (tui/ practiciil utility, ultlioii^li of a low (It'i^ii't' -and lias Itooa roiiipli'tt'tl s«» as to Ik- of |)i;n'tical utility, then it may 1)0 Naitl t»» 1(0 |U'rfi'«'tt'tl in tin* I'yi' of tim law. Johimon v. Hoot, AIS. — Sn{.\i;iK, J.; Mass., 1858. 44. itnt it is not sulllcii lit tliat sonic part lncor|iorat(Ml into an invnitioii tf drawings i^\' ,.,,|,. ceivctl idi'asisnot such an emliodjimut of such conceived idciis, into prac'lcaj and useful form, as will del'eat a palciit which has lu'cn granted. hUlKhoriv \. liithtrtiiony MS. — Inukusoii,, .1. ; .\, y. I8r)i). 4i). \n iivention is not patcntalilo until it is perfected and adapted to use. In a race of diligence helw«'eii two in- (l;'pt'ndent inventors, he who fust ii>. duces his invention to a fixed positimi, and practical form, has a priority nf right to a patent. Ibhl. .')(). ^VIlere A conceived the idea ol' an invention in 1847, and made a draw- ing thereof, but did nothing fmtlur toward reducing his invention toapiac- tical and useful form, and made no ap- plication for a patent until lsr)8; ami in the mean time 15 had invented the same thing, and hail obtained a patent therefor in J 854, but not in fiaiid ol' A, JldJ, that such alleged prior iiiviii- tion of A would not defeat li's patent. Ibiil 51. AV^hore an inventor descrihcs his invention to a mechanic, and dirci'ts him to construct it, he is eiititKil to a reasdnable time for making expcriinentu in order to perfect his invention, and such description and experinifiits, it' successful, will be considered as sulli- cient ovidonco of an assertion of his right at the time he made tliini, al though a subsequent inventor may iirt^t perfect the invention ami obtain a pat- INVKNTION, (., 1>. 420 ORIUINAUTY AMU i'lllOlUTV ur. NOVKI.TY AND l' 111.11 Y Of. (lit lIuMi'lur; iiH'l siicli prior 'nvt'iilor will 111' lillf'i I" :i pilt'iil. I>l>fs V. Ihini/iiii'i, MS. (App. Cas.) M..usi.:ii., J,- l). ('•■, iwr>n; (iif>fm v. .lolmsoit. Jhi,f., 1H(K). r)j, Siifh ilrscnplioiiH tiKiy 1m> oral, iiiul ni'ftl ii«»t iHTi'Msariiy he in wriliiiir, or afi'"iii|''"'''''' 'O' " ''''''^*'"'K' /'''''• .i:!. 'Hit' ioadiii;^ rule is tliat a person will) is I'lilitifd to a patt'Ml ai il lo l>c iiidtfctcil in l>i^ [iropt-rl y, inusi not on! , conceive llio iil*'!i "I' iii> invmiion, i>nt mnstiniliiiiiy it in a niacliinc or in sonic workint,' arr:in;^i'im'nl, l»y wliicii it may be hIiowii llial his new i/ii/.iiriil J'nrni oiiil s/ufpr to hid conception, //iiy mamifac^turing th(> thing in- vented. Jlirks V. S/iKvcr^ MS. (.App. Cas.)— Di/Ni.op, J. ; I). (;., 18(11. C!. OltnilNAl.lTY AND ruIoUITV OK. SeeiilsolNVKNTOU, H.; I'kiouKnowi.- KIMiK. As to evidence in res))pct to original- ity, see Kvii)KN(;e, II. 4. U. NOVKLTY AND UtII.ITY OF. As to evi(h'ncp in respect to novelty and utility, see Evidknck, II. 5. 1. If tlie principles of a machine are new, ('ither to produce a new or an ohl effect, the inventor is entitlecl to the ex- clusive right of the whole machine. Wldttcmore v. Cutter, 1 (iall., 480. — Stouy, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. The intrinsic difficulty is to ascer- tain in complicated cases the exact boundaries hetween wli.at was known and nsed hefore, and what is new in the mode of oper.ition. Ibid., 481. r ItkMI'f ^»^W'WV wWk*!' 430 INVKNTION, n. NOVKI.TV AND ITIMTY OV, m lil. ;', Till' iliscovory iinist not only lit' u>-'ful liiil now, and must not liavf bron known or usi'r,f ,^ Jliiiit^ 1 Mas., yo;j. — Stoky, .F. ; M;isy 1817. 7. An inv(>nti«)n tot'iititlo the inventor to a palriit, must not only be uscjui, Imt was not the first inventor, an«i this too ' it must also be new; it is a tjood (Iclcnc,, whetlier the patentee was aware of such in an aetion of infringement tlial the prior tliseovery ov not. J'jrann v. /\(>.«((? S.l 4. If an invention, in the form in w hiih it eame from the inventor's liantis, was so inferior to other machines as to rive it of all intrinsic value, yet if another person can superatM to it some- thing which will remove its defects and vender it useful, it. 1 "comes valuable, because of itH eapaeity to receive such improvements; and the inventor of Kuch improvements has n ) right to avail himself of the original discovery on which to engratl his own. (jfr/(/. 8. If the thing patented had been in use, or described in a public work, an- terior to the supposed dis<'overv df the patentee, his patent is void; ami this:dthough the patentee had no knowl- edge of sucii previous use or previous description; the l;i\v supposes he niav have known it. JiJratis v. J-'afon, ,1 Wheat., 514. — JMausiiall, Ch. ,1.; Siip. Ct., 1818. {'. In respect to the utility of an in vent ion, the law only requires that an invention should not be frivolous or in jurious to the well-being, go«)d policy, and sound morals of society. The word nxcfid in the act is used in con tradistinct lou to mischievous or inunoial. JuK'dss v. Sc/iin/l. Jiiwk\ 4 Wash., J2. — Wasiii.vcton, J. ; Pa., 1820. 10. An invention or improvement, foi wliich a patent has been obtained, nnisi be ..seful within the meaning of tlic patent law, or the patent will be void LangJon v. De Groot. 1 Paine, 'J04- 200.— Livixc.STON, J. ; N. Y., 1 S22. 1 1 . To what extent an in vent ion must be useful to render it the stihjcet of a patent, "\\ ill depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, and for which no general rule can be given, but it must in some small measure at least be beneficial to the community. Ihid.^ 204. 1 2. An invention for folding thread or INVKNTION, I). 431 *^^^' NOVKI.TT AKII lITIMTr OK. odttoii ill a iiion'oniJUin'iitiil tnaiiiicr, l»y which till' artifl*' \v«»iilil hcII <|iii<'k»'r, and at 11 liiji'i*''' l>r'<'h\ purposes; and perhaps it may also be a just inter- jirctation of tlio law, that it meant to I'xclude things .absolutely frivolous and foolish. Ibid., G. 10. The question is, whetlier the tliiii■- ♦ if ■ 'Ifl lir- 4.12 INVKNTION, I). KDVKMV AMI nii.irv or. ori'il i»r iincnli'il sn lU'l , ini< >'>«* tiiKl iiMt fill nf willli'NNOM. ir |1»> ICNiiIl '< "Tf tllfllT- or r«iint> lu'w iiiiil iiNi't'iil ill) ts u NiiliNliiiitiiil il lllll.ro III provoiiuMH oil nil iirt, »li'. h'liHjwr, /•',>• \ llif mo(li> oroptMiilioM ; iIh' ichhIiv loiiiil }uirt<\ Ms. ( A)i|>. Cms.) (.'n \N( ii, t'li. iioI Im> .lill'(>n-ii( il' tin- mciiiiM ;m> ihr .1.; 1>. ('.. isil. 'J I. .Vs to iIh< iililily of .-in iinciilioii, tlio <|iu's(i,in is no! wlu'lluT llu> iiivrii- lioii is UNcl'iiI hoyoiiil :ill ollicrs tor t'lVci-l- iiiix llu' olijci'ls lor ^vliii'ji it wjis (li>sijr Mine. />(/»'(»// V. Ih'otnn^ M Wcsl. |, ti- ll w our. i:.l. W oonin'HV, Al nsN,, iHir., .M>. Il, IS iiol lUM't'SKiirv, lo iniiitil nil II III pjilcnl, or llio ri^lil ol' llic iiivciiiur, th t'll, bill whollicr il is cmiciMc in some ! iIic lliiii-!: iiivcnliMl nIidiiM lie ||,(. V('i\ ih'^it't' of ln'iu'liciiil use, or woiiltl in I lu'sl iirlicic lor llic use lo wlijcli it soiiii' (lojxrt'i' sul(Si"\«' the |)im|ios«' oI' lie Mpplii'tl. Il'il iNiil nil Viilimlilc, jf ils tli'siijii; or wlu'llior, on llic coniiiirv, iiso lor llit> purpoM(« lor wliicli it i il w :is nn'it'ly inisi'liiovous :iiitl injurious, or ptMuivioiis, oi IriNoloiis aiiil worlli t'.'iii ilH -< coil OSS. no. l>\n)hiH'\. }fin'ifi », l:t N. Iliiini). W o«>os. .1.; N.II., ISIJ. i'j>. inju'liiiu' or ;ipp:iriiliis, or ollu'r in«'i'li:ini>';il (•oittriv.iiu'c, in order to ;viv«' a ]i;irty a claim lo a palcnl lIuMdor, innsi III I Isoir lu< siihslanliallv iii>\v. ir Nlrnctctl is praclicaltif, tlial is MiiJliciiMii loHiistaiii il MM a iiscrni iiivniliun. ,1/,, III/ \. ./iti/;/, i\ I lUali'hr., ;tH|. Nh.isiiN, .l". ; N. v.", IHJM. HO. A iiovclly ill principle niiiv con sist ill a new and valii:iMe mode of an plyiiiu' an old power; alleeiinu ji n, II S)H(tlliriU)if, '2 Slorv, 111. — Srouv, .1. :m ISS. ISl. merely l>y a new niMlriiiiieiit or liirin of il is old, :ind applied imly lo ,i new piir- llie maeliiiie, or any mere ei|iiivjilciit, pose, llial does not make il palenl.'iMe. ImiI Ity sonielliinij }j;i\in;.^ it a new or The iiiaeliine must lie new, not merely ,i;ri>aler advaiilaij*'. //i>i'ii/\.,Sf,r(iix, the purpose lo which applied. /!iT,"JltH. - Wooihii'kv, .1.; MasH., IHtO. ;tl. To he paU'iilabh', an iiiveiition niusl he iisel'iil. Ihit in ascertaiiiiie' llii' iisetuhiess of an iiivenlioii, it is not im- p«)rlaiii thut. it should be more valiiulili' ihaii any other inodoH of lu'eoinplisliiii!,' I he saim> resiill ; but i|. must he a piac- lieable iiielhod of «h)in;.j llie lliiii!,' dc- sijjfiied, ill which its utility will iiiorc or less consist. liobevts v. Wurd^ 4 iMo- licau, ,'>0(». — McIiiCAN, .1.; Midi., IH4!l. \V1. The riglit of llu' inventor docs not depeiul upon the qiiesliou wlictlicr 'ICi. \ purpose is not patentable ; but the machinerv oiilv, if new, bv which il is to be aci'onipiished. In other wonis, the tliintj ilsell' which is jialeiiled iiiiisl be new, and not the mere applic.alioii of il lo a new ]>uriH)so or object. IMif.., 411. '27. It is not A now invention, if .'ill the parts of a combination had bei'ii ap- jilicd to a ditVcreiU object before, and they were now only applied to a new object. Jfoiri/w J/oin/, W West. Law the ni.aclilne is more or less perfect, or Jour., 15.^. — Wooimruv, ,1.; Mass., whether sliglit iiiodilic.'itioiis in the 1845. j raiiLjemeiit of llie machinery, or in tlic '2^\ A combination which has any new i linishiiit? of the i»urts composing it,iii;i}' mode of operation, is to be considered or may not bettor uccoiiiplish liic oml as new ; to dotermino this, it is bettor souglit to be attained; but upon llio to look at results than to the ojiinions question whether tho inachiiicry, cou- L**^*., INVKNTION. I». 4.'lil NovHi.iT AND iiiiLnr or. Hiniolt'd as (li'Mfiilifil ill ilii> pult'iil, wil ill 111)1 iii'i'iiiiijiliNli tlii> <>ihI |iriirli or wi (•:illv 11" rliiiiM, luiil Ih ill ilMi'ir iiiiHM'ciit. II iv»> II l<< I't'NM ll nl- ^iiiiiliii)^ It |iiiti'iit, I iis*'t'iill\ ill till* u iiy |)i>iiili' ^'jutiliil. tint. 411'; I'lii'hhin-st V. Kiiiximni, I lilrtlclir. Nkihiin, .1.; N. v., IHIU. iiiii'* ;i;i. An iiivciiliDti, In lti< |i:ili'iiliililt< I iiiil. only III' iiin< lii.'il <>:iii lir iciliir ,.,1 to jiriK'lin', liiil iiniHl Im> iilililv. n»l 't'* I" tl"' iililil y of nil in vriilion, tlio i|ii<<>i|iiin is mil uliclliri' il is llii' Ii*'h|. |iiililii', nor Jii'llicr il il*"'^ ilf* NViiiK lii'll cror liislrr lliiiii niiv iiliii'i' nini'liiii)' in llii< Hnini' ili< iiiulinciil ot Inlmr, Iml il' il lie In n wy ;iiii di'^trrt" iiMt'l'iil, it in Hiillirii'iil. 117/ A//r V. Itii'i'liii', 'i! Illnlrlil'., i:iV. Ni;i, .1.; N. v., IH.M). miN, ;M. Ill ili'ciilin;^ n|ioii iin n|i|ili('nliiin fur !i |i,il<'nl, lilt' <|iu'sli(in in iml wlicllicr tli(< invciilioii is ni(ii'<< nNi'l'iil limn uilicrH, Iml wiit'lliii' il is new nml HiiHicit'iilly useful Id jiislil'y il jinli'iil. J/Zv//, /'> p„rk (rio|i(.||.Ts), iMS. (,\|i|i. Cns.) CuAiNlil. V\u.\.\ I ).('., iHr.o. ;i:i. IfiiiltT 55 7 of ilit« net (if |H:i(t, ii|Miii nil ('xiiiiiinntiiin (if nn n|)|ili<'nliiiii fur il jintcnl, it' il a|i|i(*iirH lliiit llio nitil^ ter i'or whicli lln* piiliuit ih (;liiinit'<| lind mil 'u'l'ii invcnlcd or discovered liy iiny |u'i'S(iii in lliis eoiint.ry |irior to (he in- vctirKiii or dis(M)very liy tlie a|i|)lieiinl, or liiul Mol lioeii putented or di-Hcrihed in luiy prinled piil)lieiilion, or IddI not liccii ill jMililie. nse, or on side, willi the consent and iillowiiiKH; of the iippliennl, it is thv diitij of IIk) CoininisHioner to ^Munt il jiiiteiil, if in his opinion the tliiiitj is nitjfiric/ifli/ u HI fid or iniporluiit. Aikciis, /'> parte {Vaw \Vheels)t, MS. ^A]l|l. Cas.)~CHANJ'riiui/iiiiN or iinjriintH y it is not iieees- sary II at the Ihin;^ invented Hhoiihl l»e the Itest of its kind -as that iin iniprnve- inent in tho Htrnetnre of railroad v;wa Hhniild rendi^r them entirely safe for pas- sengers, WiiiiiiiH v. Si/iiiiii'. cfc Trny Ii. /i., '2 Kialelil'., 2W), '2iH. — Nki.hon, OoNKiiNo, .1.1.; N. v., IH5I. ■to, 'I'he degree of the utility of an invention \h not a Hiilij(!(;t of considera- lion in deterininini^ whether an inven- tion is jiiitentidile, Sinhy, l'].r, jmrfc,., IMS. (App. CiiH.)—MoiiHi;i,i,, ,1, ; \). (',, \Hr,\\. 4 I, A nuuhine, in (irdor tf> iinticipatc; iuiy HiihsefjiKMit discovery, must he. per- f(!cted, thiit is, uiJide so as to Ix; of juac- ticiil utility, and not be irnirely experi- niontal, and end in ex|ierinient. Until of pniotieal utility, the public, attention is not called to the invention ; it doen not give tu the public that which the *^n: r.-W\ J ,«.. w^W^ ilK^I^^Jt^ ■^-:^ ::,■- *K' 484 INVKNTION, I>. NOVKt.TY ANI> I' Til \V\ of. puUIlo lays lioltl of ns lu'in'licial, /A»(r» V. I'/nfcnroinl, MS. Si'UA«iii:, J.; Mjim., is:. I. •J -J. WluTo, in II jtatoiit for iinprovi'- inontM in fookiiii; sloxcs, ilu> flaiiu was "tho |tlnfinix tli»« lin« i-haiiilu'r in tlu' initl«lU> of the oven, ho that the latlrr limy rt'coivo tin' lu'ut on thr»'o KitU's at onoo ;" '•»' thrro was no ju'culiarity in till' ovon or llri' cliaMiluT, and tlu' invrn- tioii a|)|irai't'(l to hi', tlial instratl of I'orniin^j: thn'i^ ovons or foinpartinonls around thv lir»> chainluT, as usual, the iiwintor rnnovod tho partitions holiind tlu' (ill' I'hamhi'is, and niado a sini^lc oookitiix s|)a»'»' insti'ad ot" thn'o; '/"» /•.'/, WhcthiT tho «'lianjji' is a ])at«'iitahh> ihsiMViTv. Wilson V. Joiifx, ;\ IMatihf., •J:9.— KKfTs. J.; N. v.. ISal. 4n. It' a n»\v and usotiil result is pni duood, iioithcr the simplicity of tho siruoturo nor t!iO}»ro;itor or loss amount of invent ion or intolloot employed as an element, are of iinporlanee in tloter- niinin;;; the validity of tho patent, '/'usi' ^■. P/ulj>l*.\ MoAllis., :.0.— M»A|.I.ISTK1{, J.; Cal., 1855. 44. 'riio patentees need not, j.rovo their diseovory to he useful to any emi- nent or larjve decree. It. is suflioiont if it produces an improved artiolo at loss cost, or with more expedition than any other known methods; that ri'udors the dise«)Vory useful, within tho meaning of the patent laws. Carr v. Itioe, MS. — JJkits, .1.; N. Y., 1850. 45. The rtord " useful," in g of the act of 1'';}G, and as used in i^ 1 of tho act of 170;i, is not used for tho purpose of establishing general utility as the test of a sufficiency of invention to sjij*- j>ort the patent. It is used merely in contradistinction to what is frivolous or mischievous to the public. It is suf- ficient if the invention has any utility. Whiti rtnntv \. fixfint/fitn, MS.—W,,. HON, tl. ; tHiiii, iH.itl. 4»l. 'I'ln* utility «if an invention u ;ii, OHsenlial reipiisilu t<» the validity of |||,, patent. A nsi'less invention, e\».|i \( patented, is not, and will not lie of imy profit to the public. Hut a ^ciicr.'il utility iH not proseriltod by the Htnliitc an tho tost of tho Hutlieioney of the iii\,.|i tion. The word is used in roiiii;i,|is. tinetion to what is tViv«)lous, or wUm js niisehievons to tho public. J',/,/,' \, Arm/, MS. — Wii.iiiNs, .1. ; Midi., |h,'.;. 47. An invention not obnovioiiH lo those objections, wliolhor more or !^s^ useful, if it be 4if sutlieient if tho invention is an iiiiprovo ment at all. If it is of a diU'eniii cuii strui'tion from former .'irticlcs el" iIk same kind, and of any use, lliat is siiffi oiont. Clitnidlrr v. l^uld, MS. (Apii, Cas.)— MousKi.i,, J.; 1). C, 1857. 41). In tho allowance of a palciit tlio (piestion of noM-lty should not lie Iod rigorously qiu'stionod, l)ut the liomtil of any doid»t should bo given to tli( :ipplio:!nt, as if his application is reject od, anil his invention have real iiatcnt able novelty, irronu'diable injury woiilil be i>roduoed, but if a patent is ailnwnl, the novelty can still be impiirtd iiiti) liy a jnry. C(>U\ J'Jx juirti., MS. {.V|i|i. Cas.) — Mkkiih;k, .1. ; I). ('., IS;);. 50. It is no ground for tho njectioii of an api)lieation for a patent for a ('(im- position of matter, that the tliinjr in- vented is an imitation of a real, exist- ing substance, or material — as an artili- cial honey. If tho artificial is a «'i'«' IS II- jIiv il hIiouIiI not Im> (ItMMiK'.l ii lu-w iiiul WM'M iii^«'" tioii. <\>rltiii «C Miirthtt, A>/ itrii' MS. (.V|»i». CiiH.) Mttusiii.i,, J,; D.C, IH.'.V. 51. Tlio ilt'f^n-" <»f I'l" iitilily <"i' im i„v,.|ilion, in ii«»(, ii iimtltT of cniisi.lcni ir it w.'tH iis(>r(il lit tlit> titiic tlir til ijiti'iit was }^raiil«'il, tlic i»alt'iil is valitl. iliit if it •'«>< l»»'«'«»in»' iiN«'l«'>'f* Hiticf, liy liscoviMV orHomi" ntlitT tliin;^, wliirh ,|„.,isi>s willi it, lliiit ^iv«'s III) lijriil to till' I ill iillll'IH III »'*•' 7V HUlU'llHtn V. )'. II. /'. ('»i»t> ('"■■, • lllalclif. Iniikii M.1.1..I.; N.V., IM.^s. ■);!. It Hri'iiiN lliat wIutc mm .•illf^cil iiivi'iiliiiii, iipoii n'«'iiv«'il ami well <'s l;ilili>lii'il |triiici|ili'M, is in fact wholly iii- ,.,.i|i,il,l(. of aiiswfrii.j,', practically, tin* ]iiir|Misi' lor wliirh iiitcnili'ij, or claininl, ihiil till' C'lHiimissioiicr (if ratciils will li,. juslilicil ill n'riisiii^ {\n\ ap|ilicHtioii nil ilifjzntuiiil of waul of utility, (htnh- w,»*, S. I)., A> juftc, MS. (App. Ciis.) -MousKi,!,, J. ; I). ('., IBr.H. '1:1. .\ii iiivciitioii must \w of hoiiic iitilily; 11 p.'iU'iil. cannot be j^rantiiil lor ;itliiiij,'alto;ictlicr frivolous, luittho pr«'- siiiii|ilii)ii on the fa of the |)alcnt is lliat il is of soiuf utility, for the appli cant is ohii^cil to swear that the inveii- tiim is useful beloro the secnration of tlic |mt(!iit. ('(ilrtHdH V. Liesor, IMS. — liKAvirr, J. ; Ohio, iH'il). .'i4. The stalnti^ makes utility essen- tial to the valiilily of a patent, but wiictluTit exists in a jj;iven caso h to be ikciiled by the jury upon the evidence siibjocl to the decision of the court upon the law. [Imce v. CtntipUU, MS. — Lkavht, J.; Ohio, iH.'if). 55. birei^anl to utility, it is well set- tled that the court will not be very rigid as to the degree of utility ; it will not impiire into tlio precise <|uanliiin of value, but if tlie invention be iisi I'ul in any i|e;rn>c, and not alisolutely worth' less, the patent will be sustained. I hid. Ml. The decree of utility ill an inven- tion is not iinporlanl. If (he invention is ust'fui, though it docH not reipiiro ^^real inventive power, it will entitle the inventor to a patent. I4KI1 A, A' r futrti\ MS. (.\pp. C.'as.) MicuuicK, J.; I). 0. iHtlO. r»7. If an invt'iilion be both new am 1 USI \\\l it can not I le ini|ieac|ici| lircausii I b it does not accomplish all that a san- ).(uint« inventor has (claimed for it. I'!iimc» v. f/oo/r, MS. — Si'iiAdiMO, J.; Mans., iHdO. K. Ikkn-iity op-. See also (/oi.oKAhi.K Vauiaiionh; h'.iitnvAi.KNiH; Form; Inikiikkhkni'kh. ]. If tho Name efleets an; produced by two machines, by the same mode of operation, the princi|iles fd'each are llio same. If the same eU'ects are produced, but by condtinutiotiH of machinery opcr- atin<^ Hubst.antially in 11 ditl'erenl m:iu- lu-r, the jirinciples ar nil. ItMH'H, in iVc i|iii'nllv II i|iii'. , iiiiitc (i'< i'ill> il till' oiii«iil«>riil)|i>. mill llii> niin'liitii'r> I'ttiit- |>li. •:»(«'. I. f»'riM/ v,i/.m;».,«, I'l't. ('. <'.. ;n>', >v VslMNulO \..I i I'il.. I HI 4. .\i il )',i'iiri!tl mil', >\lii, iMiii «i|it llii< |t:ilUO I'i'Niill, llh V liliisl III |iiiiii'i|>li> Im< tlu' n.iiiu' ; J^»«^.«^PJ/»^l//l/, in »irili>r In i<\( lu>lt< till I'oiniiil ilitViMi-nci"! ; miil liy 10 N!iin«> n'siill '\H iiii'.'inl llic nnnio in tl Kinti, tliiif ni:u"liiiu' ' llio |>li<; mill llio otii* IiimI iliNCtiMii ,| | nllii'i nioi'il lliuii lli.il i>r II IJIx II. '••lilt nil |n-ti\i'tl iniil:ilii!' ilii< ,,||,. |„,|; iiii I'lH t'lt'i I mill in iiif. {'»v ulih'li IV, I,, «:ll|,| piili'iil nin !>«» gninltil in my iiiii>; |„ I'liiiMo lilt t'liiinnl lu< t'liii-iilni'il n, ||„ iMii>iniit iiiMiilDi' kI'iIh' uiiirliiiii'. (»*(»\. /•.\i(,n of skilful juifH, Mil iill.«« iilili- in It |itil)'iil i«iiN«>, UN IouImiI IT lln> |iiiini|.|iM nl" t\Mi nijiiliiii,., „, llio Niinio. Iliil i'nn< hIiiiiiI.M.c Mkiiii , ilisliiiixuiNli uhiit ix inriinl I '} 11 |iriii, I'll*, llio lnu» lt<»;iil ini'iiniin'. ..I' hI,,, | pKt'iiliiir slnnliini ..r .•..hsiiin,,,. IS IVH. »roi«v, .1.; M pii'ilnri's niKi'o iiilii'li's, ill ill nuii'liinrs pmis of u intirliiiii'. /liirntl \. Il,i,i iW lh«< nniniiruotiiiv ot' iiaiN, in ii };i\«iU"«' nt'limi- (l\:iii tlii' i-lliiT. tf>hf., JIliS. isi., Isl-i 'rin< prini'i|i|«'M nf iw.. niii.lin:, in;n 111' llii' NHiiit', nllli.Miii^li tlh> |',, .^. In two in:irliini ono iisoti !( \ iiy llii> smiii> i li>\\i'i oi\i' piMin.nu'Hl Mini llic n|'|i('ioin< llic sniin« wiiv, lliony;h ilic cMcrn.il i nn >\!il>Ii', iiiiil llio \\\o t'oin|in'Nsoil l«y I'lniniNiu l»o ilillVronl. On tl 11' i\ li'vrr »>r tho Ufst oiili-r, ni'iinj: upon :i InunI, lln« priiii'ipli'M ol" two iiii.ln',, t>\'".il'«' joint . I'onni'i'toil wiili llio n\o\in;j ni,»\ lnMorv ililVi'iiiil, !illliou!;liihi'iru. J!»w ; iho olhor tilso nso.l ,i > iio w illi loniiil s|nn'lnn< ni;iy lm\o i^roMl Niiiiilr. tw>> j;i\\s, iho tipper oin' ol' wliioli WUH Ity ill iniiiiy I'ospootH. /A/.A, i; ti\otl. mill tl\o two w iMO i'onipir>M'il lo- 1 0. Tlio jury iiro lo iiiili;!', l>v nii in jVilluT l'\ :\ loviT ol" tin' M'l'onil oiiNt, sp«>i'tion ol' tlio inoilols, mul I'nmi \\t iW Iniuini; tl\o jiiws with i\ iViotioii rnllor oviili'iiiM', whctlior I w oniMcIniu-siliti: iKoil I'ot w orn tl\o torks ol' tlio lovor. rtUil iU'lin.i; on :in inolinoil smrai'o ot'iho vin-rj;iw. r»nt it \v;is pro>o.l tli.it mo niin'ipl Sill if ft V. / iiinr •J M.I ,i'.iii, 170.- Mrl.vvN, .1.; Ohio. isio. 10. ir tln< prini'ipio on w liicli ilu':' i. liitV Oli'lh'i s ;»«; to tho h'vor Jind tlnvohincrv works is tho s;n iVii'tion vi'IUm" wimo iho nooossiirv oonso- 1 tVvl Im siniihir in both, in no. .•iiul tin' «'ontoiiipl:i;i ononoi s of tho n»;»oliino hoinij invoitoil. ol' law iho iniiohinos mo iilciitid, JitlJ, thai it' thoir opor.ition was tho' Urooksw Hii'knilt,',\ Mol.o "1. samo. tho ilitVoroi\o>- m I'onn iliil not McI.kan, .1. ; Ohi«>, lsi;i. anuMuit to an nnontion. //•I./., ;il>S. 11, Thoro innst bo an ossonli;i •:\'\ m: lie \wAx ('». If two tnaohinos ho suhstantiallv I onoc in tho anplioalion ol' tl * I . tho sanio, atnl oporato in tho s.'uno man- ioal powor, to inako (ho inaoliiiios ti;>- lU' r. lo proilnoo tho saino rosnlt - th«>nijh similar. If>iif., '2&2. lUlSWit thoy may tlitVor itt form, proportions.' l'.\ Soionoo alono Ih ahle to Mu\ luilitv, thoy aro tho .samo in ]uinoi- ! tho timstion, whothor or not a partiui S!"«|.^ ». »-~v, Vw '^C INVrNI'lnN, |.; 4IT iDHNiirt iir. l„r iiiiu'liin'' "♦ Hiili^liiiiliiill) ill ilN mkmIi' Iii'i, iiIiImmihIi «iili ii|.|iiin'iil .hlVti i| roi'iii 1111*1 xliiii'lini', Mliit'li III iiiiHii'iKl llii< iiiiNtii'iililt)' iiiiiiil. lUiitit, ;• MCoiy, VIH. Sioii», tlU'l I'lll't'X iiiii: ii'*". I hi;.. i;i 'I'lii' \i'iy liinln'Hl wIIiu'hhi m li» hh (viliiiii '»'«'• *'''"'> '•'" ""*''''.> "I" nil •'• vi'iili "" im'< iimi IK'II, I |lii< iili|>itittliir4 mill I'litilrix.'iiKTM, I ('.iiiiMilt'iil'*! '>''«'. ''••><>ii'l itll <|ii'"< ,,11 ..iIht I in'iiiiiHliiiK't'M lioiii^ i*<|iiiil, Smith \. nnirniiif/, MS. VVotiiiltlUY, .1. ; MiisM., iM.'iO. |H, III nmrs III' n'iMKiii<, llif iit'linn of till' ( 'iiiiiiniNMiiiii«i,/., V 111. II. Il is lilt' prox iiii'i' )>| till' jiiiN III lii'llii'i llii'it' \s ii hiili |>liii is KiniM'i' I'di'iiiiiI iilli'iiliiui. Sl.hk Miuiitf'. Co. V. ir./n(f;', I ///, (iii\ 8, It 70. Ni:! ;(r', NON, .1.; ('«. i.r 1 1 I'lii'i (itiil I'llali'lil'. IS 111. 1,1, 'Pill' i|iit'slii>ii ol' iiliMitity or ilil' l,n'iii'(> til" l«" tiilit'li'^ railminl tiir hIii'cIs is, uIu'lluT lIuTl' is II Slllisttlll- lial ililli'it'iici" Im>|\vi'i'ii llii< Iwii ill llii'ir iiii'iliaiiifal ^^^U(•lll^^ mill wlirllirr iIm' iKri'iiiiaiil's iiivolvi'il mi\ lliiiiur wliicli icjuiii'tl niiiiil iiikI iiijit'iiiiily nv«T aiiii lu-ymiil liiiil ••!' iIk" liluiiililV. 'riic «|u»iif., ;!S(V IT. It (Iocs not t'oiistiliito :m itioiitily of invontioii ln'twocn two iiiat'liiiit's, or muko oilcan ciu'roafliiiuMit on tlu* other, tl;;it tlii'ir gononil iibjcot is tlio sanio. /»' >!/' '*''. MS. (i 1(1 IK, hwi, .1.1. I'll., JMftl. ID. Ill I'xaiiiiiiiii^r ipicNiioiis of ii|i lii'iriii i'oiir Hiilistail- tial pi't'iiliarily »liirli ilisliti^riii.<|ir'i tliii ail or iiivnilioii putriilttl. Wlioivcr Hiliipts or iippiopriuti'H nih-Ii iliMlinrlivo piTiiliarily or principle withoiil liiiiiMi III' till' palciilcc, approprialcM llic iiiMii- lion, ami infiin^cN tlio piilctil, il llio NpciiUcatioii lie correctly ilriiw 11. fiomt- i/i)ir V. IS.'i..'. •JO. I />. '.'/. MS. < iiiiicii. J.; N. .1. II ev.'iininiiifjr ii iiiacliine, In cerlaii. wliellier or not il \h an inlViiii^o- iiieiil of :iiiotlier, llie Hiinilarily or iliH- sitnilarily of the niir hand, its striic- liire and appearance may he very diHer- ciil lo the eye, and in point of fad, and yd il may in reality and in primiple lie the samu a» tliu previous machine. //'/(/., I m. 'J-'. 'I'lie mere mechani(*a1 «'onstnui- lioii and form of a machine art^ not, therefore, always il U'st. of its idi'iility or want of iili'iilily with uiiother. Tho priiiciph' emhodied in a machine, and which j^ives il all ils ulilily, may he put in successful operation hy 4ii« A J A>: ma^ » f • i'v, ■•I ,,,, '-}'v^- Sts^. 438 I\Vr.NTI(»\, K. IDKMTITV or. gt>n\»n of tlio Inventor. Tt U nnfuife to ri'ly ii|)iiii tilt* iiHTc ililVi'ifiic(> ill till' intvliaiiii'iil coiiMtniftioii. Ifml., (Ul. 'i.'J. Tlif Hiiro It'Nt, :unl tlu> niic t\\» jury xIhmiIiI Ito ^iiidctl liy in all ciisi'h, \h wln'tlitT or not tin' ili'ffinlaiil'H iDiicliiiic (wliatovi'r may Ik' itii form or niivliaii- U'ltl ('oiistni('tioti),lia!4 iiicor|H)ral('i| with- in it the ]irinci|)l(> or llu> foiiildnalion, or till' lutvi'l iilras wliicli coiistitiiti' llio im|trovciiu>nt to bo foiinil in the plain- lifV'H machinp. It* it «Iih'h, llii'ii, no matter wlial may ho its nioolianicai oon- Htructioii, or its form, it in an infrin<^o- moiit. Ifuif., H<1. "H. No ]»or»on can apprnpriato llio bonolit of tlic now iiloas wliioli anollior ha.H oriLrinatoil ami ]mt into praclioal TiHo, lu'causu lio may liavo lu-on onal)UMl by Hiiporior nioolianical hIuII to oinlio>Ji 2 Jjlatohf , 485. — Nki,- 80X, N. Y., 1 8jL>. 20. A olianjjfe in form or proportions from the constriietion of an e\istin<^ maohino, is not a Hubstantial ohange in tho eye of the p.itent law. So also the substitution of a mechanical ecpiivalent in the construction of a machine is not a Bubstantial change. Formal and me- chanical changes are nothing. Ibid., 485, 486. 27. Any machine may be very con- siderably changed in its mechanical ar- mnjjPinMit nnd f^»»tnirtloM,tho.hMri|. tion «»f it may bo very niiicli t|i|i;irti,| iVom in tho oonNtriiotion, and yet it tniv aoeoiiiplish tho ol)|o<'l aii „ • idontioal. They may be appan iitiv i|i|. foroiit oxtornally, and still einbriKT tin Hamo Hitbstantial identity in priiicihl, aiKi mode of operation. So, on \\^^ other hand, tho cotivorso of tlii« iir,,!, ositioii is o/»A, 4sh. 29. Tho il iiiiiontil of |MMv«'r, Imt thi* iii'^< ('ir>'i't nitiMl I)(m1U)it«'IiI in kiiul. Ibiii, 41'-'. :r.'. Tlit> iiu'i'** Tui^t that a iii!U'hint>, con»tni«««'- (.riition !»iit" iiitV't.ijxtinu'iit, rt'siKH-ts tlmtwliivli constitutes tlio I'ssi'ncc of till- invention, nanu'ly, tlif applicalion of thf primiplc. If tlio mode of «!arryin;,' llii> saiiio principle into ftlttt, adopted by till' dffi'iidant shows that the princi- ple ailmits of the same application in a \aricty of foiins, , by a variety of :ip- imriiaiH, such nuKle is a piracy of the invention. W'inttrmute v. Itvdhiyton, jIS_\Vii.soN, J.; Ohio, lH.>ll. ;J5. But if the defendant has achtpted viiriiitions which show tlnit the applica- lioiiof the principle is varied, that some otliiT law or rule of pr.netice or scien<'e is uiiiilc to take the place of that which the patentee el-ums as the essence of his invention, Uicn there is no infringe- ment. Ibid. aO. The (piestion of identity is one of fact to be determined by the jury upon the evidence, under the instructions of the court, as to what in law constit\ites a substantial identity. Smith v! Jlig- (//«», MS. — Beits, J.; N. V., 1857. 37. One machine need not bo a i)er- fect transcrijjt of the other, nor corre- spond exactly in arrangements, maimer of action, «)r results. Hut a |ialenli'e \* prot<>cled against any use of his inven tion by the employment of means ap- parently dinsiniilar to his own, if they posseas the same fifnctiiHis, are employ- eil for the same purpose, and embody a commnn principle. //cedin}{- ly mdike, substantially ditl'erent in ju*lg- ment of law. Ibid, ;I0. Nor is the substantial identity of two machines established by proof that they bring out the ^amo products, and use the same mechanical powers, and have 11 ft i'! IiJlk^ N <*!»'•' ••'"Ill '■'i ., 410 nrVBNTIOKt I. lOHNTtrf 09, ^i,iii widih |triMl«UT« the muw »«rvw»«», or proilucVPl tll«> MIIIMI* cfTl'I't ill lll<< NtlllU* way, or »n/n>tiui(iiilly tliw miuik* wiiy. Am m <|iii'MtiMii of thi-t, it Miiltlfctli il' tli«< lifiiifiiilt' liiiM Im'i'II \iMtttfil. fhiU. I'J. Ah to tlu< <|iii'wiii)ii of iiji'ritity, iiiihIcIn itro not u liviiij;, but ii *urv iiml tnit' wiliK-NH — tliiiiil), but yet, liko liii- liiiiiii'M Iti'iiMt, Npi'jikiii^ t liu'y i>ui< ploy. To curh part u vtticu poU'Ulial it ^iv«'ii. //ill/. 4M. Wlii'ii', in two (h'vl«*«'t, tli«' fti'l tn l)u accoinplislit'il it llic .saiiic, unit tlic HiihNlaiitial imaiiM to Mi'i-oinpliHli tho cikI Jiff iln' Himi', the i«o (iivifi'H iiri' Ulvn- tii'.'il, thoik^h oiii> may an otiipliMlt tlio t'lnl more ctriTtiially tliaii tlit> o||u-r. /mlli<»fi i**, art! tlicy tin- Hamc in Riibstant't' ? I.>4 tli(! machine u.s«> cliani«>al (<|uivalcut for tlitil p:iltiitt ' by tlic pl.iintitr'i' Mor- riHY. /Jun't.(t,itx^. — Li:,v\ rn, J.; Ohio, 1H5H. 45. Any muohino p)t up by tiio pat- ontc'o, or those olaimiiij; untU-r him, •whose eonstruction, .irranLfiMnent, prin- ciples, and mode of operation, are siib- Htantially the same as the one deseribed in tlie speeifleation, tliougli tlifVeriiiL,' in size and proportions, is as irnieh wiliiin the protection of the pati'Ut as t lie struc- ture therein described. (Jii/ioon v. liing, MS. — Ci.iFKOKi), J. ; Me., 1H50. 40. In determining (piestions of in- fringement, the jury are not to judge about similarities or differences, by the names of things; but are to look to the machines, or their several devices or elements in the light of what they do, or whnt offltw or Ainctton !!»py perform, tind how tlicy pttrform it ; und to tiuil that » thing is Mulmtaiiliiilly the w.mw •^^, luiotlter, if it perform Midmtantiuils i|„ Miime function or otilce in the xiiiiii' u iv to ntlain the Name noult ; iumI ili,,t thingt are NitbMlanlially dilVcniit nju'ri they perfoiui dilVcrent duticM, or in ^ dillcreiit way, (»r produce a dillircm re i«ult. //>/«/. 47. For the name rennon they nrc not to judge ubout HiindariticN or dilltTi'ti- ees, merely lu'cause tbingM an- apparmi. ly the sanu', or a dirt'ereiit HJiaiic nr form, but the true test of Hiniiliiiitv or ditVcreut'e is the Manu> in regard tn '«|i:i|ii' or form hh in reganl to names ; in Imili caHeM they are to look at the ninilc i,|' operation, or tho way tlu> p.nis udik, and at the residt, as well as the nii ;iii> by which the result is attained. l/iiU. 4h. Althoiigli two machines may lie similar in appe.'iraiice and arraiigeniiiit. if the conditions under which tin y miv to act are not alike— if the Hanic stivin' is not tt)be performed — if their y*»//'y"W( is different, and llicre is iu> idc?ititv (if object or effect, they are not idenlicnl, Kiito'yy Jvx i>iirft\ M.S. (App. C'as.) - MoHSKU., J., 1). ('., iH50. 41t. On the (pu'stion of identity tlic law regards subst.'Uice and not foim, ;iiil the re.al (picslion is whether the macliiiic ust'd by the defeinlants is in prhifijid the same as that patented to the plain- tiff. JjriiMi|'l«'. /.ft< V. Iliinihjy j||i^._>IrI,KAN, I.KAVirr, JJ. ; Ohio, ,1.'. Iliil U aiiidlu'r parly pi'ndiuM't th)' Kiiini- I'i'Miilt Ity iiHtaliM i|ilVfrira(ioii, tlit'ir in no in- |rin;,M'iiii'Mt, for it would Iw altroinl to mivlliiit fli«' j^runtiiiK of a pad'ht civcrN nil |ii)<«Milil(< wiiyH of |ii'oilucing llut Huniu ri'Milt. /A/'/. 03. It* tlu' Jury flixl n Nul>Hlaiitial lijcntify, tliv ili'lt'iulantH cannot nay that till- iiiiirlihic tiny ii*t«' Im of no ntilily, aH tin- nn'nt liii't that thi>y have a|>|)rn|iri- ntftl it \* cvidi'ticu i!i.«b iia>y rt'^aidt'd it iin (tf iilility. fhitl. ,M. Tilt) ohjfct and pur|)((st' of two iiivcntioiH may 1it> taken into conHiiji't-a' tiion in di'tcrniinin^ thu qucMtiuti uf idi'iitity hi'twi'i'n thi'tn. When' tlioir ulijoit ami piM'posi' art' I'lilin-ly ditU'rent, aiiil material advantaj^i's n'siili from ono invention, it iH patcntalilo, though it han Homo n>s(>nd)lan(M)H to u fornuT one. Hiirxfoir, Kjf jxtrtr, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoiisKi.i,, J. ; I). ('., 1H(K). 55. Tlie purpoMo or object had in view Ipysin inv«'ntion may be foiiMidered in de- tirniiiiih,i(thi'<|m'stion wlu'therit in idiMi- licil w itii anotlier. Jf>;/f, /iV ftKti(>i) of iilintity, the jury are not to inquire wliftlitT the two things are identical ill stnu'ttire, form, or dinu'usions, but wlii'tlier they involv(> substanti.'iily the same principles. Judnint v. Cojte, MS. — Lkavitt, J.; Ohit), 1800. 5". In determining whether the me- iliuiiisin of one machine is the H;ime as thai of another, we may not only look lit till' nuM'haniHiu ilMelf, that iw, thu di'vici't and thu arrun({i'meiit of ihcni, but iiNo itt their mode of i>|ieniiiiin, ami their elVicIs or rebuilt. Kiuhh v. (Utuk^ MS. Si'ii.viii K, .1. ; MiiwH., IHHO. AH. If the mode of operation be dif- ferent, it Im e\idence that the niechatl< i> Kkiiiih ok, ah Hi-rit. 1. The eonstitiition and the law to- H;etlier j^ive to tlu' inventor, fidin the mo- ment of diwcovery, an inchoate property therein, wliich in eompleted by sniii)^ out a patent. This inchoate rii;ht is e.\< elusiv«>. It can be invaded or impaired by no person, and no riirht can be ae- quireil ill it, without the consent of tho inventor. J'Jrd/is v. Jordan, I Ib'ock., i,':)2.— Mausiiai.i., C'h. .1. ; \'a., Ihi:j. 2. Whenever then any person, previ- ous to a piileiit, constructs a mat'hiiio discovered by another, he eonstructs it subject to tln' rif^ht of that other. His rij^ht to use it is ^ ■-^tr; ""^^WUkU % m. 4i'2 INVKNTOH, A. WHO IS; AND WUUTH Of, AH HlCll. ■"^^ 1 , ' ■ t: 1 iilii H^^^ kil ' >1H' ■ v* w j)rovcMiiMitH. Siin't/i v. Pearri\ '1 Mc- jA-aii, ITS. -.M. Lean, . I,; Olii.i, IkK). 4. WIhh'Vit first norfct'ts u inurliiiu' niul null' OS it f:i|iiiMi' of useful oporu- tion, is I'Mtitlt'il to :i patrut, and is the real ii'> tutor, thoiiuli others luay have |>revi lusly had the idea and uiaile some expu'iuu'Uts toward putting; it iutopiac- liee. Si nihil y that he woiiM l»e entitled to !> patent, althongli the auteci-dent ex- peiinieuls of others were ixuown to and used hy him in perfect in^j his ina«'hini. Wdnlihuni V. O'uiilif, 3 Story, I'M, — SroijY, .1. ; Mass., 1S4 4. ;'). At any rate, lie is tiie invt-ntor, and is entitled to a p'lteut, who lirst l)n)U<;;ht tiie niaciiine tit perfection, and made it ea|ial>le of useful operation. ////, but at the retpu'st ov by tlie order, and at the expense of IJ, it is in fact A anil not IJ who reduced the combination or iincntion to practice. Wor/tvr v. (rood- 2/eor, .MS. (App. C'as.) — Ckancii, ('h. J.; J). C, IS to. 7. To conslitute an inventor, it is not necessary lie should have the manual Hkill and dexterity to make the drafts of his invenlion. If the i/d., 209. 9. If a person eonsli^uct a m:iehiae, in the absence of all evidcuoo to the con- trary, the presumption is, that he is ;ilsi, the invi iitoi\ and «he burden of pro(i| in thrown upun another claiming; to lie the inventor, to show that he sii illustrate, to make ojicrativo, anil to announce to mankind. ]\trhr V. lluhni\ 7 West. Law Jour., li.';].— Kank, .1.; I'a., isti). 11. This is not to patent an nhsti ac- tion, but is to i)atent the invention as tlir inventor has ijiven it to the world, and to secure to the inventor the exclusivi' rijiht to the discovery lie imparted lo the ]mblic. Ih'uL, 4'JM. 12. The right of ;ui inventor does not depend ui)on the tpiestion whether the machine is more or less perfect, or whether slight moditications in ilic ar- rangement of the imichiiieiy, or in tin." finishing of the parts comjiosiiig it, may or may not better accomplish the end sought to be attained; but upon the question whether the machinery con- structed as described in the patent will or will not accomplish the end practically and usefully, in the way pointed out. If it will, the inventor is entitled totho protection granted by the governiiieiit ; and any one using the principle thus embodied is guilty of an infringement, liowevor he may have perfected the ma- INVKNTOK, A. r€- t^^ ^c, 443 WHO IS; AND Hit I II 18 or, A8 BVi'U. I'liiiii'i'v l>y siipi'rior ^ goiiiiiH of tlu' itivonlor. Pdrkfntrnt v. Kiiismmi, I i;iatclif., 41)7.— Nki.son, .?.; N. V., 18H). i;). In onlor to ontitlo a pi-rsoii to tlu* rlijinutiT «»t' an iiivontor, ho must not ^lol> at imsuci'fxsriil i'X|»t'riim'!its, hut contiiiiio until \w has hroui^ht out :i in:i- cliiru' produriiig ii useful result. .1/c- Cormickv. Si'i/moxr, MS. — Xklson, .1.; N. v., 1^51. It, .V piMSon to ho I'lititli'tl to the cliaraiti'r of an iiiwutor, must himself Iia\ conceiveil the idi'u enihodieil iii his iinprovenu'iit. It must he the protluet of his own niiiul ami ufenius, ami not of aiiotluT. J'iff,'* V. //'iH,'2 Ulatehf., I>a4. — \i.:!,8o\, J.; N. Y., isr.l. 1,"). Ihil in onler to invalithite :i j.at- ciit on the tjroumi that the paleiite*' f such inventor. Hittuhfiuti' v. /' MS. — Dukkuson, .1. ; \. J,, 1 .'. U). It is when speculati< ■, .uis heen reduced to practice — wlu'ii exp'riment has resulted in discovery— and when that «liscovery has heen ptrfected hy patient and ct)nlinueil experimi'iit — when some new compound, art, m.'uiu- facture, or m.-ichine has heen thus pro- iluced which is useful to the puhlic, that the party making it hecomes a puh- lic henefaetor, and entitletl to a |>:itent. (iiHuIi/var V. Day, 2 Wall, .Ir., 'J'.M).— (JifiKit, J.; N. J., 1H5'2, 'J(t. Where a person is engaged in producing some new ami useful instru- ment or contrivance, and has emhodied it into a iiuichine and endeavored to riv diice it to practice hy experiment — if those trials fail — if he fail in success and ahandon it, and give it up, that consideration att'ords no impediment to another jterson who has taken up the same idea or class of ideas, and who has gone (m perseveringly in his studies, trials, and experiments, until he has per- fectetl the lU'W idea and hrought it into pr.actical and useful operation. Ho is the person-^— the meritorious inventor — who is entitled to the protection of iho law. WiiHim v. N. Y. <£• Jltr. Ii. A'., ;U Jour. Fr. Inst., ;td. Sen, ;V22.— Niii.- sov, J. ; N. Y., 1.^')."). '21. If a person having some vaguo idea of a principle make numerous tri- als and experiments, if those trials and ■•*»** i-,:: ii'i ^WR'ffl 'f' t^ it ■s*! ;*!^ L. i /4*'^ *« 1 1: ■jj^pp - I.. isi !ii5-^ >«iti: 25 1**- ' i .1 Iff r^;*: 444 INVKNTOIJ. i;. nuHT \M' iMihiiNM ; sriiHi;i;ri;M'; itUiiriH hk. oxporiuHMitH tlo not r««><»ilt in nucIi a knowli'iloo upon his puit an « (lif idt'iiot' « liifli III' lias siicli vajjiH' iioi ion, ln< docs not lu'conic an inM'nIor in (lie hciisc of tin- |)ali'nl law. Hidishhi \. .1/«M/iir, lOiv, of Xnr }•..>•/•, MS. II Ml, . I.! N. Y., I S.MI. '2'2. Such a person luis never etnliod- ied the principle so jis to ni.ike it avail- al>lc lor piaelit'al ns(< ; and the p.artv who emliodies the principle :ind tnakes it avail.iMe lor practical nse, is the parly who is ciilillcd to u paleiil, :nid to pro leclion. //)/ inveiilion, or the jj;en- eral idi'.a of a tnachiiic upon a particu- lar priiu'ipic, .and in order to cany his concept ion into eirccl, il is necessary to employ ni.anii.il dexlerily, tu- even in xcnlivc skill in the incchanic;il tielails and arr.aiiircinenis rcipiisite lor c.arryini; out the original conception, in such cast's, the lirst person will lie iheiincn- tor. .and the other the mere inslruincnl throuiih which he rc.'ili/.cs the idea. ]\'i Union \. /{foiui' : l\!iiij\. (rii/tu'i/, MS. (.\pp. Cas.)— MoKSKi.'i,, .1.; I). (\, lS5f.. 'J I. In order to const ilule a ni.an an inventor, it is t" liis own, thout'h there may be cases in which an inven- tion may l.e the result of pure accident. }/(it/iiipx V. Skatesj MS. — Jonk.^, J.; Ala., ISGO. 25. But the tact that an invento" may have received some ideas, hints or sug- gestions on the subject tV'MU others, will not prevent him from being considered an inventor, and entitled to a patent as such. To have that oftect it must ap- pear that the invention was substan- tially commnnii'nteil to him by s(iini> oilier person, so ihiil wilhoiil the rxcr ciHe ol'nny inventive power of his own )ii< could have applicii it to pnidicr. //)/,/_ '...'ll. Thoiigii others may lia\ c hail sitn- ilar ideas, and may lia\e c\|icriiMciitci| upon I hem, I he person who liisl iicrfecl. ed the iih'H and made it capable of |ir:ii'- lii-al use, is the invenlor and cnlilled In a p.ilcni. Ifiiif. II. I'^iKsr ANP OitniiNAi.; Siiiihk- (ji'KNr; KniirrK ov. I. The right to a patent belongs |o him who is the lirsl inventor, e\cn he- Core a piiteiit is granted. h'vuii.H \. MV/w.i, 'J W.'ihIi., ;i4r). — VV'AHiiiNiiroN, .1. ; I 'a., IHOlt. 'J. ir an inventor snUcr his invcniinn l was the lirsi inventor. \\'/iiffi nxnr v. Citffrr, I (tail., IHJ. Sr»»i!V,.I.; Mass,, 1S1:». ;i. The tirst inventor is entitled to tlio beiiclil of his inveiilion, if he reduce it to pr.aclicc.aiid obtain a patent tlicrclnr, and :i snbsc(|ucnl inventor cannot, 'ly obtaining a patent, oust tiic lirst inven- tor of his right, or maintain iin action against him. II oof/coc/- v. /'iir/>rr, 1 (J.all., 4:t(».— Stokv,.!.; Mass., jHl.t. •1. The origin.al inventor of a macliine is exchisively entitled to n patent for il. (hfionif V. Wiiiklrif, '2 Call., n;!.— Sto- KY, .1.; Mass., 1814. 5. Tile lirst inventor is onlillcd ex- clusively to a patent-right, though ;i suh- secpient person may liave iilso been an original inventor. The law yives tlio right, as among inventors, to him wlio is first in point of time. IjOwcU v. L(iri»y 1 Mas., mo.— Stoky, J.; Mass., is 17. (!. The fn-st inventor who lias put tlio invention in practice, and ho only, is eu- m ■^y^^ INVKNTOIJ, n. 44n riiiHT ANti nntfitvAr,; mrmRQtrNNT; niMiiTH or. titlnl I" .1 |illl<'"l. Mvcry HiiliHr(|iiciil iiatfiilt'c. ;iltlM>ii!^li nil uiij^inal iiiviMitor, IIKIV )»>• r III' siifli |iiiiir iiivciiliuii he il|ir |i||t ill ll^f. 'I'l'" lllW ;|i|lt|llM lllf (Hi III J l( I'l ;i(H. Sroitv. U,iM a lii'st. iiivfiitiir, it is nut Hjiiv I'll" lii'" •" <"sl!ililisli llial lie luis |iiit liJH iiivt'iiliiiii into ^^cinriil use, or that ol' any HiiliH<>i|iirnt |iatcnl t'ur tin' naiiio iiiM'iilii'ii. I hill., ;i(l."i. II. It in clcaily inini.'itii'i.'il \vli<'tlii-i' i'X|ii'riniriitH iH to an iiiM'iit ion air inaili' liv till' invriitor liiniHrH' nr liv ollicm; tin' i|inwtion iM'ini^, wlm is tin- mi^ina invintiir / I'll II ni '/• V. IHiil.tijiiv, \ Wasli., t>\2. VVahiiinoton, .1.; I'a,, iH2r». \'l. ('onslniiiiL'; 15 I l>.y g (I of tlif act, of IVt)'!, tlir triK' nii'anin!4 h, lliiil (Id- liist inventor has a lijjjlil, to a |>at(nt, tliiiii lie lias inatlc it p'licra iiy iiiowii to ar- il tiMiiiiM <>nL;a^rii in tliit Haiiie Iiiisiik'sh. Ihl,l., :in.-.. H. 'riic iiilnit of llu' statute, diM-lar- ini'' it to lie a ^ooil ilef'ence to an aetioii t'or an iiil'iinfx<'iii<'ii( ol' a patent riiflit, that tin tliinif secnreil liy the patent \va^ not orifrinaliy iliseovered liy the |mt('iilee, lint hail lieeii in use, or hail hi'i'ii ileseiiheil in Koine piiMie work iiiilei'iiir to the snpposeil iliMcovery of tli(> patentee, was to ^naril aj^ainst ile I'catiiii; patents liy (he wettiii;; np of a prior invention, which iiail never Iteeii ri'iiiiceil to practice, fhif., .'101, ;t(ir». 11. If Hiich prior invention was the iiU'ic spii lation of a philoHopher, a nil rlianician, which hiid never lieen liu'il liy tho test of experience, ami iii'vur i»nt in uetniil oper.-itioii l>y him, llu! law would not. d«'prive a Kiiliseipieiit inventor, who had employed his I.'ihor aiul his t.alentH in pnttinj^ it, into prac- tico,of till) rewards duo to his ingenuity and enterprise. //>/! «•■ '^H|tri\«> iiii oriirinnl iiivtMi- tli«> iiivnition iiiitl .'i|)|)lii'iilioii lor u |,.,|. tor ot' tlu> ri)j[lil (o )isi« lii^ own prior ' »'nl, uiiU'hm tlirro lins lircii somr iiii,.c. nu'i l.v I li.'it< il.l <> llllllllC list' l*v tl us coiist'iit ; iiiiii )«> a|i|)| ■iiill ant. i/(/.. M»tl, M'l. IV. Aiul it" till' iiiMMitioii is iu'iIimIivI ;iiiil put into .•iclu;il use l»\ tin' lirsl :itiiifo, to im|nd\(' or poili't-t his iiiM'iilioii,mi,| wliftluT tlu" inxt'iilioii is cxti'iisivoly ! to pn-pjin' lor ii|i|il\ iiiu; Cor tMkiiiir ;i known or \is,',l. or tlu> know I. '.Ju;,. ainl patent. Ilil/r/., )li(i VO.'^. IS. Tlio ilocision in Ih^llnuVo t\t«c. I'lis.) l"i;\\. II. I'll. .1.; I), I'., isil. '.M. A patfiit issnrtl to HCCOIKJ UIVl'lll- or, lu'loro tlii< iippliratioii lor ;i patent, by tlu> lirst inventor, uliicli will liar tlio (J n. Illack. K., ISV), that lu> was on- issuiiiix ol" ji snltsctpicnt patent to tl ii< lith'tl to :i pjiti'iit. as an inxonlor «)!' the, lirsl iincntor, niiisl In-, tompaiihi^ ^ ; thiiij; patontoil, thoii>;h tlicro was a prior invontion thcn'of by anothi-r who with 5;,^ (I, H, :ni(l l.'> of the act of li a patent issiu'd prior to his hnunti kept it secr«'l so that tlic puMic h:it applieahle to tlie patent laws of irie Tnil e.l Mates. H'!,/., .'.US. l!>. He is thi' lirst iinenlor in the sense ot' the p;itent law , .Mini entitled to a patent lor iiis inxention, who h:is lirst ptM't'eeted .and .idapled the same to u.se, 'JI. The dietnni of SioKv in linlfoi;} V. limit, 1 Mas., .'KM, (^(^• (I. liial "tlui lirst inventor who has p\it the invention in praetiei', uml In on/i/ is entitled to h pati'iit," w .'IS I'onnded on tlu' words ''Imt. Iioif lirni in iisr," in }5 (I of the act ef IVOll, hnt ihesi' words h.ave heeii caic ill) I 1 nntil tin* inv»Milion is so perre-'ledj Inliy evelnded from >$ l."> of the acl ef and adapted to use, it is iiol pateulahle Ih'iL o!>'.>. 20. In tlie raee oi' ilij i-i'dit'e hot ween ls:Ul. If'iif. 'J.">. Hut the (h)ctrine that he wlio first eonnnnnie.'ites an invention to ilic piihhe ami puts it in praelice n.l /„ two indepei\dent in\entors, he who tnst reduees liis invt'iition to a lived position ; mih/f is t'litilieii to a p.atent, is not su|i. ind praetieal I'orm, uould seiMU to he porli-d to its rnllesl extent Ity llie eMscs, and does not apply to a lirsl invent entitK'tl to a priority ol' rinht to a pat- ent therel'or. If>i\l., ■')•.>!>, tiOO. •Jl. Uul this riijht is (pialilied hy 5; 1,") ol' tlie aet ol' 1S;U>, whieh providi's ov who IS nsmy it'ason.'ilne Uili^-eiice in adapt inij and perl'i'dinn his iinenlioii, whose riirht is saved by 55 15 ol" the acl that in sneh cases the lirst inventor shall 1 of IS.'Mi. .//>/rm. f/u'if., (lOO. •22. The riLrht of the first inventor is toward seeuring a patent, bill keqts his invention a soorct, and another poi- son, who is also an orijjjiiial but siihso- quent inventor of the same thing, obtaiu INVKNTOU. n. •H7 KiuNi vMi imiiiiNAi.; NuimKiiUHNi'; iiiiiirm or, n|' lilciil r<»i" •• •""' l»ii">? •• '"•'• iisr, |lu» I I'hdi of tlic inviMitioii. Str>'it v. Sifi'rr, Kitcn l('(< in ii Hiiil lit liivv will lie i-oiHitl- t'Vt't I (lie liiHl inv»Mil(»r. \N HM'Vt'r tirsi I / A/./, •(•rft'i'ts II iiiiii-liinr ,1 iiiiikcH it «'ii|'iililn <•{' iiHt'lul riilioii, lilli'il to II imlt'iit, tiiiil is tlii> n IS en 'III III viiilor, lln>ii;^li olIuTs iimv li.ivc IiikI ill,' itlf.i, Mini minlt' Ht»im» i>\|M«riiiH'iilM towiiitl piilliiiK '•■ '" I'liiflico. W'lm/i' hum V. (u>iihl,\\ Sioiy, i;i;t. -Stoiiy, M ISS., IHII. mm 2H. Tlu' I'lifl tliMt H |i!iity iniulf ii liiiic, is priimi J'lifii' rviflfiicc tlinl lie w.is (lif iii'^t mvfiitnr ( .r it. II III' lliit^lillv, t>H. |{».ui;us. .1. ; \'.\., |H|(i. .'i:t. 'riif |trM\isinim ol" ^;5 il iiimI I.'» of lli(< iicl «ii' |m:i<(, iiitro)liii'(>i| nil iiii|ior- liiiit iiioililiralioii into llif law nl' |iiil- nilM, (li'Hij^iicii to |iro|<'('l llir AiiH'iii'iiii iiivciilnr ti^iiiiiMt till' iiijiislii'c ol' lM'iii|r llirowii out, of llit> tViiits oi' IiIm itiiri-iiii- ily, liy llio rxislriicc of ii m-cii'l iiiM'ii lion or ijiscovi'iy iiliroinj Ihiit is, ii iMh- t'ovcry not, |>!ilciil(')|, mnl not dcsciiliril ill liny |ii'inti'i| |iiilili<-:itioii. .Iz/o//., >■■ I It'll, ;»T V. (t'lxxfi/iiii; MS. (A|>|i. Cjis.) CliANrll, CIl. .1.; 1). ('., IHIC. 'jD. Siii'li nil inrcrcnci^ is liowt'Vi'!' rr- liiiiii'il liy tlu« I'tictH lliiil in nuikiiiL,' tlic iiiiU'liiiH' lie w:is workiiii: in liis tiadr as •I iiiai'liiiii^^t in tlif t'in|>loy anil I'oi- tin' lictii'lit ol' allot licr, I'or waives, and that li,> iliil not. riaiin lor sonic time to lie tilt* iiivciilor of siK-li niai'liini', and stood liv ;iii«l saw Ills finiiloycr apply lor and olilaiii a palt'iit lor it willioni, oli'n'clioii. JhiJ. ;i(). If A make a niacliinc for W at U'h n'niicst, lor liis ln'iu'lil and at liis v\- |i('iis(>, llii< pn'siiinption is ilial it was iuikIc ai't'ordinjjf to U's dirt'clioiiN, ami tlic liiinlcn of ])n)<)r is on A to sliow lliiit it was not niad(> ai'conliiig to IJ's ilin'<'ti()iis. //>i. In Hiieh a (mihc t he Aineriean invent- or is, in contemplation of law, under tho provisions ol" the aetr <»f ('on^nss, the orii^inal and first, inventor, 'riie fact that an invention, not patcntid or de- Hcrihed in any printed pulilication, has heen bei'oi'o known and iisi^l in any for- eij^n country, is iminaterial, e\cipl so far as it may have (lome to the kiiowl- j'd^e of th(! American inventor, and (;on- lliil with the oath lie is reipiired to tako as an orii^inal inventor. Ihld. ;i(». If the applicant is ;in original in- ventor, and is in a (condition to take tho oath reipiired, the actt requires the Coin- miHsioner to issiu! tlii! patent, the courts to dec^lare it valid, and est.ililisli tho Aineriean ri<;ht, to the exclusion of tho I'orei}:;!! discovery, which has not, in either of the jriodos indicated hy tiie m liii I,. .» iiw; 111 foil ±i. *^ %>f. . Hill III llD lip.».' ' si-air '*^ite^ V«lir»«ii II iiMl|||i 44fl INVENTOR, n. riimt AM) OldillNAI,; Hl'IIMKgl KNT ; KHillTH OF. net of (*>iii;n'ss, Ih'cii coiiiiininicatod to till' |Hllilir. ffiiil. 'M. Cnitlt' .-iiiil iiiiporfcct i>\|u'i'iiii(>iits, <'(liii\(tciil ill llii'ir ri'siills, aiii' iicniiitlcd to pre vail aj^aiiisi an (iiii,'iiial iiiNfiifor, who lias lu'rlt'ctrd liin iinprovi'iiu'iit and ob- laiiiiMl Iiis palciit, Parkhiirnt \. Kins- man, 1 Mlaldif., 404. — Nkijion, J. ; N, Y., 1H4I>. 38. Till' patiMiti'o must bo tlio orijj;- iiial and lirst invontor. The invnition must be oriijfiiial with liim, and not known to others. 'J'he only exception exists in the ease of :i party obtainiiijjf II jiatent, believing himself to be the original inventor, and his invention is shown io have been Anoirn in n/oreh/n eounlry, but not patented there, or de- scribed in any printed publieation. Pur- her V. Ht'des^ 5 3IeLean, 01. — Leaviit, J.; Ohio, 1849. yf). Although all the parts going to constitute the plaintirt"s invention — a CIV wheel — may have been known be- fore, and developed in i)rior wheels, if the patentee first brought them together into a whole, and that whole is materi- ally different from any whole that exist- ed before, ho is the original ami lirst in- ventor, and entitled to a patent therefor. Many v. Sizcr^ MS. — SruAouE, J. ; Mass., 1849. 40. The presumption of law' is that a patentee is the first inventor of the thing patented to him, and the burden of pi'Dof is on the party denying it, to disprove the fact. Pitts v. JLtll, 2 IJlatchf., 231.— Nelsox, J. ; N.Y., 1851. 41. The question as to who is the first inventor, is, not wlio constructed the first machine, but who conceived, and gave practical form and effect to the arrangement which constitutes the im- provement. Ibid., 235. 42. It \n not necessary, to prrifnf ;, paleiiteii as the lirst inventor, tliiii h^ Hhoiild liHve lieeii the first one to hii;;. gest the possibility or prolialiility of siidi discovery or iiivcniioii. He miiy li;i\|. prolited by the expt-rinieiits of othns' btit it gives them no right to (>liiiiii n share of tlio honor or proliis of d,,, successful inventor, (imxlijfiir v. Jhni 2 Wall, Jr., 209.— tJi:ii:it, J.; \. j., 1852. 43. If A, claiming to l)e an invciitdr of a certain invention, stainl by niiil hear anotlier make claim to the s;iin(> in. veiition without asserting his own cliim to such invention, the inference will lir warranted that the jirinciples of siuh invention were not, at that time, known to A. Jiitijijha V. Voinii/, .MS. (A||i. Cas;)— MoKsKix, J.; D. C, 1853. 44. lie is the first inventor, who Inis first perfected and adapted the invin tion to use; but tliis i)osition is sulijict to the qualification, that lie who iinumt^ first shall have the jrrior right, if he is using reasonable diligence in pcrfcctiii:,' and adapting the same, althoiiLrli ihe second 'wwQWiov has in fact Jlrxt jxrfi it- ed the same, and reduced it to prfictioe in a positive form. Marshall v. Jfn\ 3IS. (App. Cas.) — DuNLOP, J. ; D. C, 1853. 45. A long course of mere fruitless experiments to reduce a principle to jiractice, Avill not be sufficient to pre- vent a subsequent original inventor, who lias perfected his invention witli- out knowledge of the prior invention, from receiving a jiatent. MvCurmkk v. Ketchum, IMS. (App. Cas.)— Moe- SELL, J. ; D. C, 1853. 40. But where a prior inventor has been using due diligence to perfect his invention and adapt it to practical use, his right will be preserved and protect- ^--L INVENTOR, H. 410 riRST A/>/., n2'2. titled to reonivo a patent for Iuh invon tion ovi'M tliotifjli lie may not lie a first (liscovonT in respect to sneh invention hiivin" l>een known in a foreijjfn eoini- try, iirovided he believed himself to bo the first inventor, and siieh forei^^n Invi'iitioii had not been patented, or (Icsi-rilx'd in any i)rinted i)ul)lifation. O'lUdbj V. Morse, 16 I low., 110.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Suj). Ct., 185:). 48. The mere specnlation of a philos- opher or mochanie, never put into prac- tice or operation, will not deprive a Hubscquciit inventor, who lias employed his labor and talents in itntlin*^ it into practice, of the reward du(! to his in- ('ciiuily and enterprise. liich v. Lip- phu'ott, 20 Frank. Jour., 15, ;kl Scr.— GiuEK, J.; Pa., 1H5:). 40, Hut if the first inventor reduced his theory to practice, and put liis in- vention into use, the greater or loss use of it, or the more or less widely the knowledge of its existence may circu- late, will not constitute the criterion by which to decide upon the validity of any subsequent patent for the invention. Ibid., 15. 50. The circumstance that a person has had an idea of improvement in liis head, or has sketched it upon paper — and then gives it up — does not, in judg- ment of law, constitute or have the effect to constitute him the first and original inventor. Wtnans v. iV. Y. tfi JIar. It. R, 31 Jour. Fr. Inst., 3d Set., 322.— Xelson, J.; N. Y., 1855. 51. It is not the person who lias only produced the idea that is entitled to protection as an inventor, but the per- Bwi who has embodied the idea into a 29 62. If the idea iiiv(dved in the pat- ented arti(de had occurre«l to others, or had couie to the patentee from others, still, if the patentee had been the first to give to that idea a usefid ami prac- tical form, he will be considered the first inventor. Tcc.'tfi v. Pfwlpi*, 1 INIc- Allis., 40.— iM.Ai.MSTKu, J.; C'al., 1H55. 53. When two persons are both in- ventors of the same thing, the one who perfected his invention first is protected by the law. Allen v. Jluntir, Mc- Lean, 322. — McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1H55. 64. If an inventor does not use rea- sonable diligence to perfect his inven- tion after the idea of it is conceived, .ind in the mean time another not only (jonceives the idea but perfects the in- vention, and practically applies it to public use, the latter is the first and original inventor, and a patent gr.anted to the former will be void, as he is not the first and original inventor. Ransom v. Mayor, cfcr., of New York, MS.— Hall, J.; N. Y., 1850. 55. The cardinal princi|«'ic upon which patent laws rest is, that an individual is only entitled to appropriate to his ex- clusive control that which he has by his original invention or discovery first made known and rendered useful. Ccirr V. nice, MS.— Hetts, J.; N. Y., 1856. 50. To determine his exclusive title, it is necessary to ascertain -what was before known to the public, and whether what he assumes to be his is really made so by being distinct from any thing be- fore publicly used in that condition, and aj)plicable to like purposes, and is ren- dered by means of his invention usefuL Ibid. 480 INVENTOR, B. ^"^. M' ^''hrsl^ •■5-(< ^■■!- 1%*' iC'^' ' '.<.■ |«Mn H! Ifi' "'«P' i '>s,-^-:^v '*».,, Mt: '■): ■ii j'liljtl rtHKT ANI> OIUUINAI.; KL'UMKgUKNT; HIlillTN Of. fi7. Hit who firHl inukcH known Niifll- ciontly an iiivt'iitiim, by tli'Mcriltitig it in woi-(Ih or driiwin^H, will be connidcruil tliu fii'Ht inv«-ntor, and vcHtfd with un inchoktr ri^lit to itH ux«-ltiHivc iinc, which ho nmy onihody, perfuct, and niukt; ab- Huliito by profuedinfj; to luuturu it in tlu* innnner whicli the Iriw rtMinircH. J/ill V. J)unkli>f, MS. (Ai>i>. CiiH.) — MouHKLL, J.; 1). C, 1857. 58. In d(>torininin^ the qitoHtion, un- der {} 15 of the art «»!' IHMO, whether a patentee believed hiniNeit* to be the tlrMt inventor uf the tiling piitented, notwith- Htunding tho actual exitttenco «>f aueh ihinj^ in a foreifjn country, which how- over had not been patented or described, tho detendant may give eviilence that the patentee knew of the existence of tho tiling abroad, and in considering th(> fact whether he believed iiiinself to be the first inventor, it is material to de- termine whether ho was in fact tlie orig- inal jitlventor. Fbrbutihv. Cook, 10 yio. Law Uep., 004. — CuuTis, J. ; Mass., 1H57. 69. The first inventor is not he who made or perfected the first machine or iiiRtniment, but he who first conceived the idea, and ho described it by words or drawings as to cnabK; a skilful work man to bring it into useful, practical operation. Davidson v. Leivis, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoHsKLL, J. ; D. C, 1858. 00. Such a person will be protected against the claim of a subsequent inven- tor, who m.ay have first made a machine or instrument, provided such first dis- coverer has been using due diligence in effecting the same end, and although he may have been unsucccssfid in sorao of his experiments, if by following them up he at length succeeds. Ibid. 61. Although an inventor and paten- tee may not have reduced to practical use and operation his invention, bcforo the time the mune thing may have Imvh invented by another, if at the time of such Hubse(|iu'nt invention, thi; lirNt in. ventor was using reaHomtble dilij^tuicu ()$ 16 of the act uf iHIiti) in ada|ttiiiir and perfecting the same, and did at\t'r- ward in a reasonable time adapt and perfect the same, such Nubseqiicnt in- vention will not deprive liim of tliclxn. efits secured l>y his patent. Jiartlml). mem v. Sairyer, MS. — iNciEUSoi.L, J. • N. v., Apr., 18r)9. 02. The true meaning of 55 7 of the iict of IHiiO is, that a patent shall i>i8uu to an applicant and bo valid, if he i.s the originator and author of a new iiivcn- tion or discovery, unless the thin;,' in- vented by him has, prior to his alli';,'eii «liMcove»*" or invention, been invente(l,or discovered, or used by some one clxe in this country; or uidess the invention has been j)atented or described in some printed publication in this or some for- eign coimtry, prior to the alleged inven- tion or discovery of the applicant ; or unless said invention of the apiilicant had been in public use, or on sulu with his consent and allowance, prior to iiis application for a patent, for more than two years. Bartholomew v. Sawijtf, MS.— Ingkksoix, J. ; N.Y., Sept., 1859. 03. Though a machine is made urul completed prior to the invention of another, and though such prior mai'hine embodies the improvements or jirin- ciples contained in the other, the inqui- ry for the jury is, whether the former was in point of fact a machine complet- ed and reduced to practice in contradis- tinction to an experimental macliine, or a machine made by the supposed invent- or, in the prosecution of experiments and inquiries ; and unless it appear that such machine was actually used as a INVKNTOII, n. 451 riMT Axu oataixAL; tuMiquuT; biohtc or. working miu'liiiH'i tlio jury ari« warriuil- ctl in prt'siiinitin tliiit it is a riiero ox per- iiiieiii, atxl it' "<*< '^ ^''" "^'^ iiivnii(li;e of tlie toriiier inaeliinc, and did not derive any of hh invention from Mich other perHon. Cahoon v. Bi/if/, jIv<_Ci.iKKi»Ki>, /.; Me,, iH.'in. 04. To entitle any pernon to an ex- clusive ripht, by virtue of a patent, he must be the first aH well us the orij^inal inventor. Johnson v. Jioot, ]MS. — Sl'KAtiUK, J. ; MaSH., iH-'jO. tl5. The person who elearly Hupgests an invention, or deseribes it, so that it can be practically applied, is entitled to a patent therefor, and not the one who first actually putH it in operation. SteariKif v. J)(nu's, IVIS. (App. Cas.) — DiNi.op, J. ; D.C., 1859. GO. The person who is the first to conceive and give expression to the idea of an invention, in such clear and in- telligible manner that a person skilled in the business could construct the tiling is entitled to a patent, provided he uses reasonable diligence in perfect- injf it. Eamea v. Richards, MS. (App. Cas.)— Merrick, J. ; D. C, 1859. 67. Where an inventor describes his invention to a mechanic, and directs him to construct it, he is entitled to a reasonable time for making experiments in order to perfect his invention, and such description and experiments, if successful, will be considered as suffi- cient evidence of an assertion of his right at the time he made them, al- though a subsequent inventor may first perfect the invention and obtain a pat- ent therefor; and such prior inventor will be entitled to a patent. Dietz v. Buniham, MS. (App. Cas.) — Morsell, J.; 1>. C, 1850; Oihhs v. Johnson. //>i,f., 1800. (IH. Merc conversations about tho practicability i>f an improvement, or suggestions as to the nntmier in whic.lt it might be carrie:iti>iii lor it, will not l)i> «l«>|iriM't| ol' liis rij^lit to •tiifli p.Ut'iit Ity H nior«' tiinly Htid i)t>^li;^t'iit iitvt'iitor, wlio may liavo first i'oiii'fi\t>il iIh> idt'ii ot'liii' itivt'iitioii, ))\it dill iiolliiii^' lowiinl r«<r/»,v., MS. (A|.|.. Vi\*.)— DiNior, J.; I). C, !HHI. 75. Wluro .\ coiiciiM'tl tlu> '' iilt-a" of an iiivciitioi), lull made no drawiii^ of it for »ix or hovoii montlis, and in tin- moan tinio ({ had foni't'ivcd lht> Hauii< iiivi'iilion, and h ' imdf a tnoiU'l of it, tliiis jjjivinLT />/!>/••< I j'ttnii iiiitl s/inpi' 1«< his ('oMci'|itioii. /A/7, that il waH to 1m> Ci)nsid«'ri'd ax having Ih'^t j»i>rf»'cli'd his invontion. Jfu'd. 7(1. If a person, aHcr lii\ iiij; the <'oi\ (■('|ilii>n of an invt'iilion, is nsinjj; dm' tlilijjjfnci' to perfect it and rodnee it to praotiec, he will still he deern«>d the fn'Ht inventor, though another, who eon. eived the idea latt'r, may have lirsl jierfeeted the idea by inannfaoluring th< thitig in- vented. ///<7.\i V. Shaver, MS. (App. Cas«.)— DiNLor, J. ; I). C, 1861. >fc JOINT INVKNTIOX AND PAT- ENT. 1. If, of two joint invcMitors of a ma- chine, one of them, without the other reliiuiiiishing his interest to a joint in- ten-it in the patent right, o]>tain9 a })at- cnt in his own name, he will be deemed gnilty of a fraud, and will in eipiity be considered as a trustee for the other. liiutiffii \. Kiih'urf*, 1 Wash., I7l.__ Wasiiinoton, ,1 , Ta., |ho|. '.'. .\ joint patent nniy well he jtrraui. ed lor II joint inviiil'on. An iiixciiiiiin may be the result, of fhi> eoinbiufil m,.,,. till operations oi \\\n per^txiis acijii" tn. ifether. -\s neither eoiiM elaiiii lu I,,, (lu> Hole inventor, the invention In joim and they are jointly entitled ton paiini, lltrntt V. //.///, 1 Mas., 47a.— .s,,,,,, .1., Mass., iHls. il. A joint patent eaniioi be siiNtaiiir I upon a sole invention of eilhcr of (|„. patentees, for tliii patent net jjivcs im right to a patent e \eept to the inviiiinr. 4. A joint patent for an iiuentinn i> utterly iiieonsistent with m-veral patciiN for till* Name invention by the Kainc |i:ir- lies. No person ean bi- at the «\\uw tinu' the jt)inl and sole inventor (if ilio www invention. /7iicli joint patent, Jffid, to an aetion of covenant l)roii<»lif by one of wich joint patentees, that the oth( '• 'ould not pload that neitli'T was the inventor, or that weparat p 'ints had been issued to each, t'^teornen r. Barrett, 1 Pick., 443, 447.— AVii.dEjJ.; Mass., 1823. ':-i' (W^^. Ij. JOINT INVKNTION \S\) rATKNT. wiimt AW ■Murni trittMm. 7. AikI tliitf iit\i>r lwi\ iiiji; nl>lniii(*«l n joint. |iali >l. iH'i''<»'r |iiiily vouU\ koI ii|> the prior x>'p:tl'ult> |)ilhH|o|>|<> >i !>>' tin* ^«'|>!trilt(' pIltl'tttH iVoiii >i!«H('rliMf< tliitt till) invciilioii wiim joint, MiW., 147. 8, I lilt' i'ir«Miti)M(ikii<'i>N ur« ii'hiiHin t\\,iVf th-u twii piirtii'H colli riliiitfil to aii iiivt'iitioii, HO iiM to iiitiko tlirtii joiiil hi- vi'iilorH, n Joint piiti'iit » n Dill. 77ininii» \. Wri'^H, '2 I'aiiii', lOI. _-Tiio«i'«<'N, .!■; N. v., IH2V. (I. 'I'Ik' niiiii who rri|ii*'«>s lo pcarliri' till- theory »f ftnothcr, who i»MNi,MtM in tlii> rt', raiiiiol he foiisith'ii'il IIS ihc sole iiivi'lltor of llii' marliini'. Arnold v. /lin/ii'/i, MS. (App. Cum.)— Cuanui, Ch. .1 ; l>. C, IHII. 111. ir oiif sii>;i{»'mI llir iiK h' ofopi-r- atioii or the princi|il(> of u inachiiic, itml miolhcr rciliict's it to priicti(M>, luithcr am ho coiifiiK'nMl rh tin* Moh' iiiv«-nlor, liiit the iiivmtioii is jnjiil. //u inciiii iiijr,.!' 55 r. n\' Ihr ii.l, oC ln;i(l, ami ifhc a|)i>lii'H tor a patent, llie (!oiiiiiiiHHi(»iuntioim eannol, un- der J5 tt of ,lio (id of 1h:i7, Inhiio jointly to the inventor iiK hiicIi, uikI to tho as- Mj,'nee of a partial interent; hut may issue to the aHHij^nee or iiHsij^iiees of tiuf vliole intereHt. Anon., 4 Opin., Mil. — Mahuv, Alty. (ten.; lHi5. in. A partial assif^tinient l»efore Issiie does not eniithf tho partial assignee lo have the patent issiicil to him to the ex- tent of his 'nti'rest. //>«/., 401. 14, If a i»atent is issued to two as their joint invention, hmcIi patent is jirima facie ovi(l«»iice that the invention was joint, though tho faet may ho dis- proved at thu trial. Ilotchki.is v. (Jrcen- wool/, 4 .Mef^enii, 4llJ. Mi'I^kan, J,; Ohio, IH4H. ir>. .V J.dnt interest in a puteiil duot 'lot make ihoHO inteii -ted pirtiiorM. Some ikL^M-eeiiieiit liei'oiiitiN iuu'I'hnkj jr to ••fiaMe Iheiii lo work llio iiiv«'nlioii at thn'ir j"iii( I'xpeice and for tin u Joint heiM'lit. i*itrA/iiirtl \. Ki/iHnimi, I Mlin.hf., 411(1. Nm.ho>», J.; N.V., IMIO. III. I'riMif of (he deelaratiotiH <>f h parly elaimiuj^ lo he a joint inventor of an inveiilioii, and le^serlin^ hih h in>eii'> torship, made in ihr piesem f iho other joint inveiilor, and not denied, or impheiity admilleil l>y him, Will he Niif- lieicnl III prevent the iNHuin;{of a patent to >4iieh other inventor, on an ap^ili< uiioii without joining tin; former. Ymi'HU'y V. Itrookjbid, MS. (App. ('aH.)— Moii- HICI.I,, .f.; I). ('., |H.,,t. 1 7. The relation o|' copartners he- twi'vii joint patenti'eH docH not result from their eonniHttion as joint pat«>iileefi, or het ween one of two joint |>atenti'eH and the iiHsi^neo of the other, 'i'lm parlies are simply joint owiim's or ten* antM ill eoininoii, of the rights and pro|>> eriy secured by the patent and their li.Ljhts, powci ;, ,ind duties as respeetn each other aro hMlistiintially those of the Joint ow'inrs of a chattel. l*!tf.Hv. Hull ;i niatchf, 200.— Hall, J.; N. Y., IH.M. !H. One. Joint owner of :i patent can lei^:illy f^niiil, assijLjii, lict-nse, or ■ "11 only in refpec* tt^ his own sharo or right; lio cannot sell and f^ive j;ood title to hirt co-owmn's rif^ht ; and if he appropriates any portion (d" the i'xclnsivc lij^ht or eonitmm property to his Hoparatc ti.se or Itenefit, either by a Halo or UHO of tho patented machine, it is in jtrinciiph; the samo as a conversion, by destriu lion or sale, of the joint property by a tenant in common, and for which the other 'C ■■M^*^^c*^^,, i.^.^^' 'ii., JUKlSDKTroN'.-JI'UY. WM^r g< kNTIiiNi DKrilllMINHD MT. ti'iiiinf In I'ommnti ooiiM mniiilnlii trr>v«r. Ji}itl., '.'07, '.'OH. 19. NnHnllMCiii'torjr r« till' pitrt owner of n rliiittr', liav« Ilia miii'ily by nii act ion on tl,c ctuu ii^ainMl Ilia ('o|iio|irit tin* Nolo own/n„ ">/ .MK'en (App. ('.w.)-Ih Ni.oi., J.; h. ('.. IhUo^ *JI5. Hut li«'li| by NieinoN, J., in rrlVr. ence to tliii MHine patent, that ol" ,\iln.t„ and Fi*llhoUNen, that if each wkm an inventor of a tliNtinct part, fi)>|iiir;itr patentH ought to have isMiieil to coth. and not a joint patent to the two; aixl that if so issiu'd, the patent wan voiii, /'ntfer V. Wihon, MS. — Nkuo.n, J. N. v., I MOO. JirUlSDICTION Of ('ourtN, ico Couhth; KmiTT. Of Justices of Cin-iiit Court of Div trict «)f Columbia, see Aim'kalm, H. 3. JURY. As to how far tho jury may construe Patents, hee Patknt, P. 4. 1. The jury are to dotormine wlii'th. or the patentee in the first inventor; whether the defendants are iixjiij,' hi^ invention ; and whether improvciiu'iiti* in a machine are in the princijilc, nr form, or projiortions of it. Jieiitijcuw Kitnowm, 1 Wash., 171. — Wahhi.nutox, J.; Pa., 1H04. 2. Whether an invention is new ari'l useful is a (ptestion for tho jury. Park V. Little, '\ Wash., 197. — Wasiiinotos, .J.; Pa., 1813. .1. It is for tho jury to decide whetluT there has been any dedication, hy the inventor, of his invention to the publii'. Whittenuvre v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 48.'.- Story, J,; Mass., 1813. 4. It is a question for the jury, wheth- er the ro.ichine used by the defendant is substantially the Hame as that of the plaintiff; and whether the plaintifi^n 1% ' jriiY. 406 WHAT QVMfRW* MmHUIWU* BT. piyi^nt h»» bttn aurri'iil it ioitnly i»l»luini'r of in- (iuiry« whutlit'r tliM iM'tit'tltM cil'iui iiivi'ii- tioii ar« of Hiifttrifiit ('oiiNf<|ii«>n('<< to \w i)ri)t«'ft«'« //rool, I Puiiit', U04.— liiviNiJHioN, J.; N. v., I«W. tf. Hut if, oil tho pliiitititTH own nIi«)W- in^, tlu' iiiv«'iitioii in iiHt>l«>NH, il iiniy lu' (l()uli(«'tli«'r th«> court wouM trtui- fofiiil its liinitN, in di't'iditi); hiicIi <|iifN- 7. Tlw iiiU'iitof tlio (lolny in n|t|>iyint? for 11 piitfiit, mill whctlior tlit* allowing an invt'iition to hu unoin, 1 I'aino, Ulii, — Tiiomi'- Bo.v,J.; N. Y., IH'J4. 8. In every ease, it in a quoHtion fi>r the jury, whether the ehun^e <»f form nixl proportion in an invention huH pro- ducini a tlifli-rent eHeet, ami is a new in- vention. Daois V. Palmer, 2 Hroek., 310.— Mausiiaij,, Ch. J.; Va., 1H'J7. 9. Tlie (pioHtiun whether the acts or acquiescence of the party furnish, in the given case, satisfactory ])roof of an almndonnient or dedication of the inven- tion to the pubUc, is one of fact rathi-r than law. liut when the facts are given, there does not seem any reason why the court may not state the h>jj;al conclusions deducible from them. Pennock v. Di- alogue^ 2 l*et., 10. — Storv, J.J Sup. Ct., 1829. 10. Priority of knowledge and use is a question of fact, which a jury may decide on the evidence of one witness. Whitney v. J'Jmmett, Bald., 311 . — Bald- win, J.; Pa., 1831. 11. The kiiowled^oof an inventor, of hU aeqiiicNieuce in the pulthc iite of hi« iiivetiiiiin, may he preMunied from cir- euniNtaiieeit; hut thirt in a fact for ihu jury. StfUB \. Cnnftrr.l Pet., 3'il.— .Mt I.KA.N, J.; Sup. ('«., Ih;i:i. 12. The jury are to judj^e, hy nn in- spection of (he models, and from tho evidence, whether two ma«'hincs liilVer ill principh'. Smith v. Ptnr^'ty 2 Mc- Lcim, 170.— .McLka.v, .F. ; Ohio, 1H40. l;t. The (piesiion of the forfeiture or ahaiidoiiment of an invention, \* aipieH- (ion of tact for a jury on a trial at law. JliUlnlh v. y/f«/M, MS. (App. Cas.)— Cka.n. ii.Cli. J.; I). ('., IHU. 14. Ol)jectit)nrt to a patent, that tho specification doen not HuHlciently de- scribe the invention — or that the inven- tion is not new — that a renewed and the original patent are not for the same invention — or that tho patent wait ob- tained with a fraudulent intent — all in- volve matters of fa«'t, which Itelong to tlio province of the jury, upon the evi- dence. Carver v. Jiraintree Manuf. Co., 2 Story, 441. — SrOBV, J.; Mass., 1«4:j. l.^. Wliero witnesses differ as to tho fact of infringement, the n will he submitted to a jury, either by an ac- tion at law, or an issue directed by chan- cery. Jirookd V. liickueUy ;i McLean, 202.— McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1H4:'. 10. The question of the unreasona- bleness of tho delay to enter a disclaim- er, is a mixed question of law and fact, and must Vie decided by a jury, under the instruction of tho court. Urooht V. Bickiiell, 3 McLean, 440. — McLxan*, J.; Ohio, 1844. • 1 7. Whether a reissued patont i« sub. stantially for a different invention fron\. the first patent, is a question of fact for a jury; but as by § 13 of the act of i^,l >..»' 1 :?l^ ' - 'VU-v. m^k 456 k&U' " '^i;''"' h - .""k.' '^C ' t; a tin ;4- tWI-^'i: ''^liHl,, '•1 u;ii :-Nit^ i3 !^iP ^Ji-'""' JURY. WUAT QUKSTIONS DKTKUUINKI) BT. 18;)0, tlio C'ominissioiier of PatciitH is nutliorizi'(l to issue a roncwed jmtont, the iii(|iiiry afterward in regard to tlie mrrcii r is limited to the fairness of thefraiisaetioii — to the(iuesti()ii of fraud ill thti surreiuler. Stiitijtaon v. West Cheater R. It, 4 I low., 404.— Mi Lkan, J.; Sup. Ct., 184.'5. 18. Whether the sale of an artieh^ before a|H)iication for a i)atent will amount to an ahandoinnent of inven- tion, is a (|ues(ion for a jury in a trial at hiw. lioiith V. (uirelfi/, 1 Ulalchf , 24!), 2r)0.— Xki.s(.n, J.; N. V., 1847. Ifl. It is a (|ue!^tion of fact for tlie jury Avhether a departure, in a ilefenthuit's machine, from tlie iirran^^ement of parts in a machine (hscribed in the phiin- tifl;"s patent, constitutes a material varia- tion from tlic j>atentee's arranj^ement. lUanvh. Gun-IStovk Go. v. Warner, 1 lihitehf, 278, 270.— Nki.son, J.; Ct., 1S40. 20. It is
    e tviJcMce. }'<(/i('e v. Ctonj^Ml, ^m. -Lkaviit, J.; Oiiio, 1850. 35. It is a question of fact for the jury whether the defendants have in- tringed the pat( nt of the plaintiH". Wnt is exclusively for the jury. Jiid.'ton v. Coj)e, MS. — liKAVirr, J. ; Ohio, 18(J0. LEC'TUHES. 1. The author of lectures has aright of ])roperty therein, wiiich is entitled to protection. Lectures may be taken ut he may not print them. Jiartlett v. Crittemh/i, 4 McLean, 304. — McLkah, J.; Ohio, 1847. 2. Any use of such lectures, which should operate injuriously to the lecturer would be a fraud upon him for which the law would give him redress. Ibid., 304. 3. The author cannot claim any vested right in the ideas he communicates, but the word , and sentences in whicii they are clothed belong to him. J hid., 304. 4. Lectures, oral or written, c.'umot be published without the consent of the author, though taken down when deliv- eri'd. Jiartlett v. Crittenden, 5 Mc- Lean, 42.— McLeak, J.; Ohio, 1849. LE'rrERS. See also Manuscript. 1. The receiver of a letter has no right to publish it without the writer's consent. Denis v. Le Clcrc,\ INIartin, 302.— Mautix, J., La., 1811. 2. Unless there be u nu)st uncipiivocal dedication of private letters and papers by the author, either to the public or some priv.ate person, the author has a .^,* a»t-vWwiii/Wwj ^^;f^ ^^^* ilill^ ^ya ' ^^^ %#., WW ) [^'•l ill lit I* y imf "'^^ .£ ■.CL**;" ^mn'' 'C'Sk , "Ssi,v 458 LETTERS. PllOPEUTT IN, AND PUOTKCTION 01, l»roperty tlioroin and the copyright ho- loiigH exclusively to him. J'olsotn v. Marsh, 2 Story, 109. — Sxonv, J.; Mass., 1841. 3. tSemhle, that there is no (liHtinction between letters of business, or of a more private or domestic character, and let- ters Avhich from their character and con- tents are to be treated as literary prop- erty. Ibid., 109. 4. The author of any letters (and his representatives), whether literary com- positions, or familiar letters, or letters of business, possess the sole and exclu- sive copyright therein ; and no jicrsons, neither those to whom they .t'c address- ed, nor other persons, have any right or authority to publish the E.ime upon their own account or for their own benefit. J/>id., 110. 5. But consistently with u isright,the persons to Avhom they are addressed possess the right o ^/uMish such letters upon such occasions as require or justify the publication o- public use of them — as to establish a personal right, or vin- dicate his character — but this right is strictly limit«^d to such occasions. Ibid., 110, 111. 6. In respect to official letters ad- dressed to the government, or any of its departments, by public officers, the gov- ernment may, perhaps, from principles of public policy, withhold them from publication, or give them publicity ; but private persons have no right to publish them without the sanction of the gov- ernment. .Il)id., 113. 7. A Court of Chancery assumes jur- isdiction to restrain the publication of private letters on no other principle, and upon no broader ground than that of a copyright in literary productions, or of property in the paper on which they are written, similar to property in stereotype or engraved plates, ^y^.^ more v. ScoviUe, 3 Ed. Ch., 527.-— Jj,. Coin, V. Chan. ; N. Y., 1842. 8. It will not exercise the power of preventing a publication of private Id. ters of business on the ground of copy. right or literary property, Mhcn thev possess none of the attributes of literary composition. Ibid., 528. 9. Nor because they Avcre writton in confidence and their i)ublicatiou migjn wound the feelings. Ibid., 529. 10. A court of equity will restrain the publication of letters written by the comi)lainant, if such letters are in fact of any value to him aj literary produo. tions, or if his right to multiply copies is worth any thing to him. Iloyt v. Mc- Kemie, 3 Barb. Ch., 324. — Walworth, Chan. ; N. Y., 1848. 11. But otherwise as to such letters as have been written to him by other persons without any authority, express or implied, to publish them ; as to fiiicb the right belongs to the writer. Ihil^ 324. 12. A letter cannot be considered of any value to the .author, for the purpose of publication, which he would not eon- sent to have published, either with or without a copyright. Ibid., 324. 13. A court of equity will not attempt to restrain the publication of private letters, on the ground of protecting lit- erary property, when they posscii no attribute of literary composition. Ihii^ 325. 1 1. The writer of private letters has a right of property in them, and their publication may be enjoined. They can only be used by the receiver for the purposes for which they were written, or in justification or defence. Jiartletl V. Crittenden, 5 McLean, 42.— McLkas, J. ; Ohio, 1849. 4W' LKTTKUS. 450 rnOJ-EUTY I.V, AND PltOI'KCTION OF. 15. It is doubtful wlietluM' iiiulcr tliu net of 18;U, as to copyrij^fhts, the courts of till' rniti'tl States cau exoreiso juris- diction, by way of injunction, to i>\v- vent the publioi'tion of private letters contrary to the wishes of the writer. Woolsej/ V. Judd, 4 Duer, 382. — Dleu, J.; N. Y., 1855. IC. A court of e(iuity cannot interfere by way of injtuiction to prevent the publication of private letters, merely on the ground that such a publication, without the consent of the writer, is a breach of confidence and lionorablc feeling, and is dangerous to the peace and morals of the community. Ibid., 383, :}84. 17. Such an injunction caiuiot be granted, unless it appears that the per- gonal legal rights of the party seeking the aid of the court are in danger of violation. Ibid., 384. 18. The writer of letters, though written without any ])urpo!!e of publi- cation or profit, or any idea of literary property, possesses such a proj)erty in them that they can never be published without his consent, unless the jiurposes of justice, civil or criminal, recpilre the publication. Ibid., 390, 391. 19. The receiver of letters has only a special or qualified property, confined to the material on whicii they are writ- ten, and not extended to the letters as expressive of the mind of the writer. Ihid., 393. 20. Neither the receiver of letters, nor any other person, has any right to publish such letters, without the con- sent of the writer. Ibid., 393. 21. The property which the writer retains gives him an exclusive right to determine whether the letters shall be published or not ; and when he forbids their publication, makes it the duty of a court of equity to aid and protect him by an injunctioii. Ibid., 393. 2'J. The receiver of a letter nuiy pulv lish it when its publication is shown to be necessary for the vindication of his rights or conduct ; but this license has never been extended to a person whose possession of a letter, or ol the ciopy of a letter, as acquired without the con- serit of the writor or receiver, is wholly unlawful, rbid., 400, 407. 23. iJut if a receiver attempts to puln lish such a letter, or any i)art thereof, against the wishes of the writer, aiul upon occasions not justifiable, a court of e(iuity is bound to prevent such pub- lication by an injunction. Ibid., 40(5. 24. As against a stranger who has possessed himself of private letters, or copies thereof unlawfully, the right to restrain their publication is absolute — such person having no right to publish for any jiurjiose whatever. Ibid., 400. 25. Letters written by one ])erson to another, either of business or friendship, and aside Irom the question whether they have any literary value, are prop- erty. Ui/re v. Iligbee, 22 How. Pr., 200.— MurxKX, J.; N. Y., 1801. 20. Tiie property of the receiver of such letters is not absolute in them, but only special. Such letters will pass to the administrator of the person receiv- ing them, but they are not assets, and cannot be made the subject of sale by him. Ibid., 202, 202. 27. As regards private letters, the right of publication as one of literary property, remains for a reasonable length of time (to allow its assertion by publi- cation) in the writer and his personal representatives. After such a period has elapsed, that there ceased to bo a probability that such right to publish was treated as a legal right, any one 4.^-: A m%f i.1 ,a te' \^^ m ■nij(i « i1^*^ '^^^' 400 LICENSE, A. !• ^'. im *A- !i: ■»► • 'r' 1. ^ •V 'f s NL, WHAT conhtitutkh; RioiiTa undkb; ErrECT or. may ]iii1ilish who can obtain ooines. //>/(/., JOT.— (ioii.u, J. 28. Wliatover i)ro])L'rty tlicn* is in siu-Ii IctliTs rests ill tlu' wriifr, and not jii the rt'c'C'iver. Ibid., 208. — l.vti.'iA- II AM, J. 29. TIk'^ adininistr.itor of tlio rocoivor may however ivtaiii tlieni, as lie wonUl a rociiipt or an acroimt, to aid liiiii in the settienieiit of the estate, if they liad any bearing upon that subject. IbuL, 208. 80. And if sueh letters are of sueh a character as in his oi)inion wuuM be in-odtictive of injury (if published) to the M'riter or others, he may destroy them, and no one can call him to ac- count theretbr. Ibid., 208. LICENSE. A. "What cossthttes ; Rkuits undeii; KfFKCT (IF TAKI\(i 460 B, IlKfOUDlN'O OF, AM) TliANSFKU OF. .. 4G I €-'• FUUFKITUKE OK; ACTIONS O.V 4G0 A. What coxstiiutks ; Ivkjiits un- DEU ; Efi-'>xt cf taking. See also Assignment, B. ; Extension OF Patent, C. 1 . Where A erected oii his own pr^^m- ises and at l.'is own exp( nse a machine, the invention of B, and li then leased of A for a term of years the machine, covenanting to deliver the same to A at the end of the term, Ifdd, that this •amounted to a license or a consent in writing, under § 4 of the act of 1790, to use the machine after the end of such term. Reutgeii v. Jianoicrs, 1 Wapb., 172.— Washington, J.; Pa., 1804. 2. An offer to take a licen««^- from a patentee to uhc his invenMt u, does not take away the right of the person mak- ing sueh offer to deny that tlie patentee was the ^'liginal inventor. Ei'hm \, J'Attl»l^ Pet. C C, 347. WASIIINcilyy J.; i'a., 1810. ;j. A patentee by an itistruint'nt agreed to "grant, bargain, sell, a,ssigii, and transfer to !>., his ext-cutors, ail- ministrators, and assigns the right aiiij privilege of making, using, and scllin.f friction ii'.atehes," as patented, to have and to hold " the right and privilego nf mamifaeturing tlie said matches, and to emi»loy in and about the same six per- sons, and no more, and to vend sa'ul mutches in any part of the UnitiMJ Slates." A proviso followed that noth- ing therein contained should ]ire\ enter restrict the patentee from "making and vending the same, or of selling and con- veying similar rights and privileges lo others." And B. was not to inaiiufac- ture in certain places. JMd^ that siuh a convevance was an authoritv or license coupled with an interest in its exccntion; but not so much a property or interest In rem, as a right of user for tlio lien- efit of the licensee. Brooks v. Bynmy 2 Story, 54H, 551. — Stokv, J.; Mass,, 184.3. 4. lender the patent acts, if an inven- tor allow another to use )iis invention for a considerable time before applviiii,' for a patent therefor, and a intent is af- terward obt.iined, such f^rinissioii and allowance will justify the jury in pre- suming a license or grant from the pat- entee, and such person is not liable to an action of infringement fur the con- tinued use after the patent is granted. Mc Clurg v. Kingsland, 1 llow., 208.- |B,vj.i. ■'.-.'! .V, J.', Sup. Ct., 1843. , ry Uud' !■ ^; V of the act of 1839, the ' J..": on Ti'ho Uiit, had the use of an in- m LICENSE A. 4n WHAT CONSTITUllCH; UKIIITH UNIliCU; KmOT Or. J vi'iitiiiii prior to tlii' iippllcutioii of a jmt- uno imy siu'li luachini's in hik'Ii t«'iTitoi*y out tlu'i( lor, 1"^ on llu' siimt' fnolinj; as for ii <^ivfn peritxl, nnd n'sorvinir, liow- if 111' liad a spi'cialiit'i'nse from the in- 1 cviT, tiii! ri^l't, (o tiu' jialcnlt'e l<» con- viiitof, wliiili, if JJtiven lii'forc (lit- appli- jstrncl and lici-nsn wncli niacliint-s clsc- caliuu for a jiaU-nt, wonld justify tlie wlicrc, JlilJ, tliat till' {frant was df ;iii bility. /fu'f.,-M\*. (i. i>iit tin- nsc of an invention before an ai»|iliiiit'<*" *•*•' " patent, must be tlie Bpecific iin|troveinent then invented and used liy the person ^vllo had jiurchased, coiistnutcti, and used the niacliine to wliich the invention is ajiplied. Jbiif., 210. 7. WhcM'c a patentee assi!j;ned and released :ili liis rij^ht, tith", and interest ill the letters patent, so far only as tlie exchisive ri.L(ht of manufaetnriug :>nd vcnJiniL,' for a term of years for a week- ly consideration, and in ease of default of payuu'iit, that the patentee was to have tlie right to claim and take back tlio interest, JIclil, that tlio agreement conveyed no interest in the patent-riglit, but that the grant amouiitetl to a mere license, with a limitation or condition as to its continuance. Armstrong v. Ilaa- Icnheck, 'S N". Y. Leg. Obs., 45. — Ukti's, J.; N. Y., 1844. 8. The words "license and empower" need not import any thing dilferent from "grant." In their broad and general sense they are used indiscriminately. A mere "license," strictly speaking, passes no interest, but only makes an action lawful, which without it would have been unlawful ; but if the instru- ment passes an interest, then it becomes a "grant." Wushburu v. Gould^ 3 Story, 1C2.— Stoky, J.; Mass., 1844. 9. Where a grant to license and em- power parties to construct and use fifty patented machines within certain terri- tory, with a covenant tliat the patentee would not license any other persons to continuetl use aHor it issued, w ithout Ha- exclusive riglit under the patent. Ihiil., 100, I (I.-), l(i(i. 10. 'I'lie limitation of tlu; nundier of machines to be made or used under a patent, is not inconsistent with the grant of an (exclusive riglit in the jiateiit with- in such territoiy. Ilnd., 1(»7, lOH. 11. The taking of a temporary Turense to use a i)atent-right cannot be consid- eretl as an acknowledgment of a right in the licensor beyond the ti-rminatioii of such license. Ilich v. IloU'/ihlxn, 1 1) C that B siiould be entitled tt. use A's patent three days in a week until a given date, and that A would not prosi!cute any action against 1> for any lormer violation, provided 15 should not use such patent after the specilied date, or by any other machine infringe A's riglit ; Heldf that such proviso, in- troduced by the plaintiff, :iiid not plac- ing any personal oblig.ation on the de- fendant, did not operate as an estoppel against IJ to prevent him showing the truth in regard to the validity of the right of A. Ibid., 419, 420. lU. If a licensee or grantee acknowl- edge, under his hand and seal, the va- lidity of the grantor's title, query, is he not estopped from denying it ? Jirooks V. Stollnj, 3 McLean, 520. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1845. 14. Where a party has an hiterest in only a j)art of a patent, as a license to use the invention j)atented, only in the manufacture of a particular kind of goods, he cannot maintain an action for ^^mt' ....V ^ .■ M^ '**'^^«r;, 468 LICENSE, A. 'i:-, ^'^ ^m^' *' !*« k.| x^Wtf, 7.S^ :,: ;::> m>-. -^ PL., WHAT CO.NHTITL'TIOI ; P '111T8 VNDKU ; KJ'rKCT OF. un iiifriii^rotiu'iit. Suydam v. Dny, -j. IJlatchf., :i:J. — Nklhon, Iha-is, JJ.j N. y., 1H40. 16. A liconsp to run our niaclitno will not 1)0 coiislriKMl to iiu>an an iilfntical particular niacliinc, unli'ss it is ho limit- c'tl in oxj»ri'H8 ternis. Wilson v. StolUy^ 4 Mi'Loan, 278. — M<'IiKAN, J. ; Ohio, 1847. 10. A license or grant of an exclusive right to use a jiatcntcd machine for a fipccifietl j»urj)ose, as a right to use liiaiicharcl's patent for ttn-iiing irregular forms, to turn lasts — . 17. h.\\ 'igreenicn made hy a pftl- entee, ami «.onveying to the grantee the exclusive right to make and vend the thing patented within .1 cerf.-iin territo- ry, hut reser\ing to the grantor the right to make and sell williin the same territory, is not an assignment of an exclusive interest in the patent, but is only a license. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How., 495.— Taney, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 1850. 18. Tho right to make a m.ichine is distinct from that of using i(. liickneU V. Todd, 5 IMcLean, 238.— 3Ic Lka.v, J. ; Ohio, 1851. 19. The right to use implies a right to repair, but not to construct. It also implies a right to purchase, when the one in use is worn out or destroyed. Ihid., 239. 20. Declarations on the part of an inventor that he does not intend to take out a patent, but to let ihe public have his invention, are equivah^nt to a license, and such party or any one holding mi- der him will be estopped from asserting his right as against a person acting on the faith of such declarations. Pitts v. ff'»V, 2 niatchf., 237, 238.— Xkim.v, J.- N. v., 1851. 21. An agreement innd«> between l!. and C and others, providing for tliu selllenu'nt of various m.-itlcrs, ilu. di^, continuance «»f certain suits, and also as to the nuinufa(;ture of a certain articlf as follows: "that the said parties may each hereafter mamifaclure ainl vend Hpikeofsuch kind and chanuMcr as tlicy see fit, notwithstanding their contlicfi,],, claims to this time," nutst bo constnicd with n'ference to the situations of the parties to it; atid W. having cliiinmd that he had the exclusive right, iiiulcr his patent, to nuike such spikes, wliiih right the defendant C. was infringiiii; but the defendant chiiming that lie did not infringe such jiat«'nt, but made muIi spikes by an entirely ditVerent inetliod- Jldd, that such agreement did not <;ive C. a license to nnike such sjiikes after li.'s patent, but only a right to make them by the same process or niaeliitici'V he had been before using. Tray Iron and Nail Fac. v. Corning, 14 How., 213.— Way NK, J.; Sup. Ct., 18.V.'. [OverruUng same ease below, 1849; 1 IJlatchf., 470.] 22. An agreement made by the own- er of a patent, securing to the urantu the exclusive right to make, use, aiiil sell to others to be used, the iriacliino patented, within a certain territory, but reserving to the grantor the right to sell within such territory nuichincs of liis own manufacture, does not ojienitc as an assignment or transfer to the grantee of the right and title secured hy the l)atent within such territory. Pitts v. Jameson, 15 Uarb., 315. — Johnson, J.; N. Y., 1853. 23. It is an agreement in the nature <»f a license to manufacture and sell, but more than a mere technical license ; it is a LICEN8K, A. 49$ WHAT CUNHTITUTKH ; HIUIITH UNDBR; irriCOT OF. fivc'.l cimt not ri^lit, v«stpfl in f lie pfr.intoo, aii'l ft^'xiKiiiil'l*' ••>■ '"'"• I' '^» liowfvor, n clioso ill uctiun, nut in |i(mNt'Nsioii, an*l tlie ^ruiitee and \m asui^ns can ri'tain till' rijjlit only no lun^ asi the ItiisinoHs ih prost'i'iiti'tl uudor it. Jbid.y ;\\6. •>i. Whenever the business is aliaiulon- I'li, tiio rijjhts seciiretl by the contract rovort to the grantor. Then, but not till tlicn, the grantor can ncII rights to third persons to make, sell, and use tlie nati'iited machine in siu'li territory, witlioiit being responsible to the gran- tuo or his representatives for damages. J5. The reservation by the grantor is also a mere personal privilege, and not transferable to others. //>/(/., Mil). 20. Tpon the death of the grantee, the contract and the rights under it go to liis administrators as assets. Ifji'd., 316. 27. But though they had no right, as .idininistrators, to carry on the business of making machines under the contract, they could sell ai.d transfer the right, and the purchaser would acquire all the rights secured to the intestate during his lifctiiiK', if the bvisincss h curried . obtained an immediate right to manufac- ture, and not merely an obligation for a Aitiin* right; and that \\. could recovt-r of ( I. one half of any sales made by (J. of the right to make such hose, and that B. became entitletl to such iiioifty, iimiiedi« ately upon any such disposal. Mrliiir' /ift/\. <,'(>odi/,tir, II (,'ush., 571, 572. — Miiimn K, J. ; Mass., inrt'.]. 20. Under § 14 of the act of 18.10, an action at law is properly brought in the name of the pati'iitee, in behalf of a licensee who is damaged by the iii- fringoiiient. Oooityear v. Mv liurn'ijy 3 IMatchf., :(n.— Nki-son, J. ; N. Y., IH.VJ. ;$(). A party has no authority to grant ruH'iises under a patent upon a mere agrei'inent with the patentee to assign such patent. The patent must be actu- ally assigned to such party before ho can gr.'int licenses. Day v. Ilttrtahorny MS.— I'lTMAN, J. ; 11. I., 1834. .'11. One tenant in common in a pat- ent h.as as got^d a right to use, and to license others to use the thing patented as the other tenant in common has. Clnm v, lirewer, 2 Curt., 624. — CuuTiS, J. ; Mass., J 855. 32. A licensee under a patent is one who has transferred t(» him, in writing or or.ally, a less or ditterent interest in siudi patent than cither the interest in the whole patent, or an undivided p.-^rt of such whole interest, or an exclusivo sectional interest. Potter v. JLAland^ MS. — I.VGBBSorx, J. ; Xklsox, J., con- curring; Ct., 1858. 33. A licensee b.as no legal rigbf, as an .assignee, to surrender a patent, axuX a surrender Avithout his concurrence is valid. Ibid. 34. Nor can a mere licensee brinjj' an action at law for a viohitiun of tho patent. Ibid. 35. A licensee is, however, entitled to the s.ime right under a reissued that he had under tho old patent ; but he can- 464 LICKNSK, n. RIOOROINO, ANU TRANIirKU Of. :':3 %.>. ■'*-. m\: '«fc not ho f'oinpolli'd to tako umlor tlio lu-w, and \(\\\} \i\}\m riglil uiulor ihu uld uiio. no. A t'ontraot of lifi'iiMu U liko cvrry otlitT cDiilract, ami ilcpciuls ii|i()ii a lair foiist ruction of tlu' ads of tlit' [lartit's. Jhll V. MiCuUuwjhy MS.- Lkamit, .f. ; Ohio, IH58. ;!7. The »alu of a macliino, ami thr liglil to iiso a patt-ntftl ailicK' with it, imports a lici'iisc to usi' tho aitit Ic pat- ciitt'd ; and Hiu'h liccnsi" is not within tlu' provisions of >| 1 1 of thu act of IK.'Ul, which rc(|uirc an assii^nnicnt or {^rant to he in writing;, liuxn v. l*iit- 7ie!/, 1 1 Mo, Law Kcp., 087. , J.; N. II., 1858. ;18. A licensee may hrin.ir, for his own benefit, an action in the name of tiie l>atentoe, hut the nominal plaintiff c.in reqnire inilemnity for co»tH. Goodyear V. r>i$} np, 4 Jiliacht", C. C- Xklson, J.; N. Y., 180O. :U). The mere taking a license does not estop the licensee denyinjjf the va- li<|i(y of a patent. Mitchdl v. linrchnj, MS. SiiiiMr.vv, .T. ; N. Y., IHOo. 40. Covenants in !i license as to the use or disposal of the products of a pat- etited machine or process, are binding only npon the parties to if, and the pub- lic, or a purchaser of the products, can- not be compelled to notice or rejjard such agreements, or the rights conferred or reserved by them. The Wis/ii'/iff Mfc/tifie Co. V. Earlc, 3 "Wall, Jr. — Pbiek, J.; Pa., 1801. 41. A stranger purchasing the prod- uct from one licensed to use the pro- cess, need look no further, and may use it for his own purposes without inquir- ing for or regarding any private agree- ment of licensers not to compete Avith one another. Ibid. 42. Where a patentee granted to .in- ' other the exclusive right to niaki- mi,! Hell his palentol invention, williin a,.,, p. tain territory, for which he was to 1,;,.. a certain sum f«»r each nnichiiie sm ii);„|„ and sold, but th«' palent<'e reserved t!it> j right of sending machines u{' Ins ,)^^„ manufactin-e into such territorv, //,/,/ that such contract was not an assii'n- nient of the it.itenlee's iniercHt in tin- pati'nt in such territory, but a hkti' gnint or license to make and sell il,,. article therein ; an«I that an action nm^t not be brought in the name of ihc y.w. entee, and not in the n.ame of tliej;r!iii- tee. J/itHHti/ V. ]y/ti((l(i/, MS.— Lkav. irr, J.; Ohio, 1801. B. Iti:<'oi{niN(!, AM) Tkansi'ku ok. 1. An assignment of a pin-liciilar in- terest in a patent-right, or a convut though a riglit or license mny be transmissible, it seems not to be ap- jilfeil LICKNSK, 15. 400 THAMHrKH or. |,oiliiiii:»li!«', wuh'SH it in vt'ry clt-Jir fniiii till' ii'^tniMU'tit tliiit Hiich \v:i>« tlir intent and tiii'.'iiiiii^ ot' (lto]iurtifH. IbUl.^ ij(4, b'A. 6. Kvt'fy fonvcyancc of siK'h Horl muHt, liowcvi'r, Im« ilccidt'il upon itH mvii tciiiiJ* iiiiil iilijccts, iici'onlin;; to tiu' true intent and ineanini; of the parties III it. //'/'A, fi.'iO. 7. Ii: tliis ease, 7/r>2. 8. Tlio rij,dit or lit^eiiso to use a nrn- oliiiio is assiirnahlo to a thirrfh\. Ciii'tin^ '2 VVood.»t Min., 527.- -Wooniituv, J.; Mass., 1H47. 0. A inachino, and the rij^ht to use it, is personal property more parlienlarly tliiin a mere pateiit-rif^ht ; and has ail the incidents of personal property, mak- ing it Kuliject to pass by sale. Ibid,, 527. \[). Where a maeliliio, or rltijlit to use a macliiiie, is soM before tho orijrinal patent has expir«'d, the uso of sueh ma- cliinc then in operation, may bo con- tinued until it is worn out or destroyed. Ibid., m^. 11. The right to use such particnlitr iiiacliino, and the machitie, after the term expires, may i)ass by sale, devise, levy, or assignment of an insolvent's effects. Ibid., 530. 12. Whore one licensed to run a pat- ented machine, sells such machine, the license to run does not necessarily pass with such maehiiu'. Wilxni, v. Stnllii/ 4 AIi'lA-an, 27H. -Ml Lk.\n, J. ; Ohio, IhtT. I 'I. A licciisu to UNO n patented ma- chine may bu assigm>d, it not lietng a mere personal priNilegc, W'iIxoh v. Stolhy, .") .McLean, li. — Mi Lka.v, J.; Ohio, IH41). I I. Ill such casu the assigneit is bound to perform the (!onditit»ns of the license ; and the same rnio applies to the assignee of the li/»/., '1. l.'i. The ditlerenco is well understood, betwei II lici'iises which may l>e assigned or used for others, and those which the licensees coiihl only personally u^ic with- out being transmissible by them to others. Ti'dij Iron «0 Xdil luivtury v. ('orii.'tif/, It Mow., '2Hi. — NVaynk, J.; Suj). Ct., \Hr,-2. 10. A mere license to a party, with- out having his UHsigns, or «'(|uivalent words to them, Hhowiiig that it was meant to b<' assignable, is on!} a g;'aiit of a personal power to the licensee/, and is not transferable by him to anoth- er. Ibi 'i« iifff'^' ri)i'r»;iirRR or; actiomm rrnii.i iiks. flod ttirill' for unrli urc, find C took "n ft«Ni);miU'llt <»f',«li- gution to [r.iy tlit> H|i('cilli'« cnjoitiud irom itH UHf. //>!«/., 456. i), FoitruiTuui^ oi ; Actions luiiti'XCT- ISO. 1. A person a^^nvil with a p^tt'titi'c to l»ay him a i-i'itaiii sinii on cvi ry pat- enti'd articU; ir»:tniifai>turi>(l by liiiii. 'I'lic I»rttriil('c Itro'ighf Ills action for money liatl and received; I/itif, tliat tlie jury Jniudit infer tlio receipt of monoy iVoni tho fact of tlio Hall' of the article, t^ftin- liij V. ]\7iij)/)h', 2 iMcI.ean, 43. — Mo 1j:av, J.; Ohio, ]>*:\0. '2. And ahhout^h the contract was ppc'cial, yet if it appear to l»c executed, and not open and suhsistiiifjc, it it* a well Bt'ttlcd principle that thii plaintiff inttv recover on tl»t' general count for molies liad and received. Ibid., 44. 3. The briui^inj^ of an action to re- cover the arrears duo under a license to use a patent, does not r'-alliun the li- cense allcr default and notitic of the termination of the I'cense. At'iimtroiKj V. iriiilenheclCi, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 45. — Bicrrs, J.; N. Y., 1844. 4. And the p.itenteo may have an in- junction to restrain the further use nmst lie performed, or there i- hd ri,,),, to the use. Hi'uo/i'H v. .SV'lu)<>i'(h V. U'etff, 1 flliitclif'., 106, ], ;, \i;i,M»x, J.; N. Y., lrt4(J. t;i. TIm- H'i|iiilutioii h t«> liu tri>titi>tl ji, a iloiildi' >»H'unty ^;iv«'ii liy tlio II , t'Uitue tu the ^'r:uit'-', 3:J0. II), A forfoiturc of a lici'iise may bo intoiToil aooordiiij^ ti> its tonus by rou- •(III of tliu uI»aiiiloiiiiient or iioglool of ihi' liceiiHee. WUkihi v. Stnllvy, 6 Mc- Lean, 2.— MtLiiAV, J.; Oliio, 1840. 17. Wlioro the liooiiso otiDtains a pi*o- v'hJou tliat :i failiiro to act iiiidor il for a ivrtiiin tinieshoulil oo an nbainluniiiont, afoi'iual notice from the UcenHor is not necessary, tiiat ho consitlors sncli a fail- ure an ul)an(U)iiiiU'nl. IhiiL, '-J. 18. \ cuiitract to nso a ]>atoiito(l iiia- cliiiie (hiring' tho ooiitimiaiioo of the jial- ciit, aii'l to pay thorofor a iixoil propor- tiim of tlio value of the fuol saven. UV»- ton V. Shv.nmtn^ 1 Dhitohf., BSH, 640.— Nki-son, J,; X. Y., 1850. 'i\, Ibit such an injunotion >\ill not bo j;raiitod if the \ iol.tion lias boon disooiiiii,iiod, and if it ipprarHlhellion- Koo was K'"'^y "'*' 'l'^-* violation iindor misap))n'honiti< ij d' hi.s rl^^lttiiundoi the licoiiso, ///'#„ 540. 'J'J, I'pou the broaoh of tlu' conditions of a liooiis<<, the pHlentoo or Hcensor ha* a iii;hl to avo.d tlio i outraot and Iw re- united to his original riifhts, and prose- cute tho licrusee for tin infringoineiit of tho jtatont. Woodworth v. Cook, 2 IMatchf,, IU0.~Nki,8»»n, J, ;N, Y'., IHJO. 2;{. In siioli I ase also the liconsi-e is j'oniitted to his orij^inal ri^lit- and posi- tion, as the contract must be avoided al- tojjothor, if at dl. It cannot be obliga- tory upon one party and not upon tho othor. Ibid., 100, '1\. Whore the party liad tho right to use t wo machines under a right acipiirod during tho original term, and afterward took a license inidiT an extended term, and upon an alleged non-porfonnanco of tho conditions of such liconso, an ac- tion for an infringement was brought by the patentee, or his assignee, JIddy that tho liconseo, under tho decision on Wilxoii V. Jio.H8cau, 4 How,, U40, ct)uld set uj) .1 right to continue tho use of such two macliines, as having been in I nsf when tho first term of tho patent expired* Ihid., IGl. 25. Where a patentee, G., gave to a person, D., an exclusive right or license n ^f^-' IMAGE EVALUATION TicST TARGET (MT-S) ./.X ^ '^^ ''.ss^5^ 1.0 I.I lis 12.0 lU IL25 i 1.4 I IE -► Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 'iZ WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTEit, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 '^ o ^ V >^^ A ^. <^ i\ <•' ''?) / ■• ■■^•'li. 408 LICENSE, C. kiir; h *-/>», ^'^^ N*^! J'OUFEITUriK or; actions nKHI'KCTIXO. to USD li'iH, (i.'s, i»;iU'iiti't between G. and 1)., that in tliu event of others clainiiiig grants and usshig sueh hiven- tlon, and thereby lini)aiiing tlio profits ■\vhicii vould accrue to I), that then sueh tariff sliould cease, Jleld^ in an action of covenant for non-i)ayment of sucIj tariff, and other non-compliances, tliat it was a good defence that otliers used the invention and iuii)aired the right of D., and that it was of no consequence Avhetlier G. was unable to restrain other parties from such use, or whether it was to his advantage or not to do so, Good- year V. Day^ MS. — Gkiek, J. ; N. J., 1 850. 2G. The granting of a new license by the owner of a patent, to a second per- son to make and vend a patented article within a certain territory, .after he had granted a prior and exclusive license to another person for the same territory, is no bar to an action brouglit on the frst contract or license, to recover the amount agreed by it to be paid for ma- chines manufactured under such con- tract, but may be available by way of recoupment of dam.iges. Pitts v. Jame- mn, 15 Barb., 317. — Johnson, J.; N. v., 1853. 27. Where a licensee undertakes to use a patent Avitaout paying for it the amount specified in the license, equity will so far enjoin him — whether the license thereby becomes voidable at law or not — that unless he will pay he shall not be allowed to use. J)ai/ v. JTartn- horn, MS. — Pitman, J. ; R. I., 1855. 28. G., a patentee gave an exclusive license to D., to use his patent for a speci- fied purpose only, D. covenanting not to use 't for any other purpose, .'ind to pny a specifietl tariff for siu-h use. 1). )ist(l the patent for other purposi-s. (i. il,,.,, sued I), in New Jersey to restrain siuli use, and obtained a ileereeand an order for an accounting. After such dccno was rendered, C. with a knowlcdjie &; it took from 1). an assignment of Lis license .and went on making ihc •A\^\\^•\^. permitted by it, but refused to pav U> G. whiit Wiis due from I), on aceoiint ,.( tariff fees under the license, or wlmt w.as due by D. for violating the patent, G. then filed a bill against D. and C. to set aside the assignment of tlie license as void, or that it be permitted to stand only on the condition that C. pay to (i. what D. owed for tariff fees, and lur the breach of the covenants of the license. Held, on demurrer: 1. That G. had no lien on the agreement or license to secure the tariffs stij)iil.ati'J therein, and that therefore the bill set up no title or equity as against C. as respects the amount due from D. at the time of the assignment of the license. 2. That the unpaid tariffs due from D. to G. afforded no ground for enjoinini; C. from acting under the license, and that it was not material as respects G. whether the assignment was fraudulent or not, and that the bill could not be sustained as against C. to aid in enforc- ing the decree against D., or to collect from D. the amount of tariff which wis due from him at the time of the assign- ment of the license to C. Goodyear v, Day it Cong. Rub. Co., 3 I>latclif., 45:). — Ikoersoll, J.; N. Y., 1856. 29. A suit brought to enforce the covenants of a license granted under a patent is not a case arising under a lav of the United States, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts to take cognizance of it. Ibid., 454. '^^^ LIMITATIONS. 400 ^W» APPUCATIO.NH ; API'EALa; ACTlO.Na ;)0. The mere porformatico of such oovoiiaiits would be a violatioii of the rirjlits of a pateiitco as secured by the loveiianta, but not as secured hy any law of tlie IJ^iiitcd States. //>«(/,, 454. 31. If a licensee use the thing patented lieyoml the limits of tiic lieenKe or <,Mant, or in a way not autliorized thereby, then there is a violation of the rights secured to the patentee. Ihid., 454. LIMITATIONS. A. Op AiM'UCATioNS Foil Patents 469 B. Ob" Appeals to Justices' CiKOurr Court 469 f, Of commencino Actions 4Gl» A. Api'lications fou Patknts. 1. The statute does not limit any time in which the inventor must apply for a patent, nor does it declare a forfeiture by reason of any delay. Delay there- fure is unimpc-tant, unless it amounts to evidence of abandonment of the claim, and that is proper matter for the consideration of a jury. Ilildreth v. Ikatk, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cbancii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 2. There is no act of Congress that makes delay in taking out a patent fatal to the first inventor, unless he abandons his discovery to the public, or by his "consent" allows it to be put in " pub- lic use or on sale," for two years before taking out a patent. Allen v. Blunt, 2 Wood. & Min., 141. — Woodbury, J.; Mass., 1846. 3. It is wholly immaterial to the va- lidity of the patent, whether an inven- tion was long antecedent to the appli- cation for a patent, or directly prece- ding it. Wilder v. JleCormick, 2 Blatchf., 33.— Beits, J.; N. Y., 1846. 4. Before a patent in granted, thco is no law that recpiircs the first in\entor to disclose his invention within any lim- ited time, nor is there any limitation un- less the lapse of time is sufficient to show an abandonment, whi(^h is a (lucs- tion for a jury. Perri/ v. Curmll, MS. (App. Cas.)— CuANcui, Ch. J.; D. C, 1847. 5. If an inventor unnecessarily defer his application for a patent, anil sufPT his invention to go into use^ except for the purpose of perfecting it, and testing its utility by proper experiments, and beyond what he has reason to believe necessary lor these purposes, his paient is void. Winitns v. Schencc. <£• 'IVoy li. li., 2 Blatchf., 291, .<00.— Nklson, CONKLINO, J J. ; N. Y., 1851. 6. No particular time is limited by the statute, within which an inventor must make application for a patent, yet it ought to be done within a reafionahle time. What is or wliat is not a reason- able time, depends on the circumstances of each case, l^llithorpe v. Itohertson, MS. (App. Cas.) — MoRSELL, J. ; D. C, 1858. D. Of Ari>EALB to Justices' Cib- cuiT Court. 1. There is no limitation of time as to an appeal from a decision of the Com- missioner of Patents to the justices of Circuit Court. Janncy's Appeal, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cp.ancu, Ch. J.; D. C, 1847. C Of commekcing Actions. 1. There is no act of Congress limit- ing the time in which a suit may be brought for an infiingement of a patent- right. Parker v. Hallock, MS. — Gbi- EE, J.; Pa., 1858. ' i .?SJ?itefci^:^ >^..4^^ 470 '»»4. si>^ MACHINE, A. WHEN I'ATKNTAULK; IMUNril'LKH OF. 2. The two years' Utiiilalloii In wliicli sciciict' liavo (lis«-()\er('il, luit tlio r/jo(/,/j to hriii}:^ .suits lor jteiialtii's, prosciibt'il in tlio ('limes act of 1790, is n'i»fiiIo(l by iniplication Ity g 4 of tiio act of 1h;}0, wliirh t'uafls lliat suits for penalties or forfeitures must be brou^jjlit witliin^^'c years from the time when the penalty or forfeiture accrued. iStimp.wn v. Pond, 2 Curt., 503, 604.— Cukti^, J. ; MaHS., 1855. o/Mrdiidi, the peculiar manner cr iltnin of produciu},' any given etfeci. //.,,/_ LOST AIITS. See Akts, Lost. 3IACIIINE. A" Wnvis PATENTAiu.E ; PiuNOiPiJig op; Identity of 410 B. PlUNCIl'LE.S or, AND MODES OP Al'PLI- c.vrioN; aow explained anddescuiued 472 At Patentahility of; Prixciples of; Ibentitv of. See also Form; Improvement; Lv- vextion ; A., E. 1. If tlie jiriiiciples of a machine are HOW, either to produce a new or an old effect, the inventor is entitled to tlie ex- clusive right of tlie whole machine. The intrinsic difficulty is to ascertain in com- l)licated cf^ses, the exact boundary be- tween what was known and used before, and what is new in the mode of opera- tion. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 480, 481.— Stor-v, J.; Mass., 1813. 2. By the principles of a machine (as these words are used in the statute) is not meant the original, elementary prin- ciples of motion, which philosophy and 481. 3. The opinions of skilful witnessiv, whether the jirineiples of two niaeiiin, , are the same, are competent evidcuio in a patent cause. lint care sliniiKl \w taken to distinguish Mhat is meant liv a principle, the true, leg.al ineaisiiij,' (,f which, in respect to a inacliiiic, is, tl,,. peculiar structure or constituent parts of such machine. And in this viow tlic (piestion may be very properly askcil, in cases of doubt and coiiipltxity, of skilful persons, whether the prin(i|jle.^ of two machines be the same or ditKr. cut. Burrcit v. Hall, 1 Mas., 470.— Stouy, J.; Mass., 1818. 4. The principles of two nimliinos may be the same, although the form or proportions may be 'litferent. Thiv may substantially employ the same power in the same way, though tin,- external mechanism be apparently dif. ferent. On the other hand, the princi- ples of two machines may be very dif- ferent, although their external structtire may have great similarity in many rt- spects. Ibid., 471. 5. The meaning of the terms "an improved machine," or "an improve ment on a machine," is substantially the same. Ibid., 470, 6. The distinction between a machine and an improvement on a machine, or an improved machine, is too clear for them to be confounded together. Ev- ans V. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 516.— Mar- shall, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 7. There is no substantial difference between a patent for an improvement on a machine, or a patent for an im- proved machine. Ibid., 517. 8. A machine, and an improvemcJit MACHINE, A. *ic, 471 the terms "an "rtu improve ubstantially the WIIGX PATEN rAULK; I'UINCll't.KH OT. on a iiiiu'liiiio, or ;iii improved miicliiiie, mu»t ii"t '>(' c'liirdHiiiU'il : a j^rniit of the fXi'liif*ivo use ot" an improveiiiiMit in a iiiiu'liiiK'i I'riiicipli', or I'roeess, is not a jrniiit of (lie i'liproveiiu'iit only, hut the iiintroveil machine : an improvement on ;i mai'liiiie and an improved machini' are the same. Whitney v. J-Jinim tt, IJal.l., ;tll.— Mai.dwin, .1.; Ta., 1H31, 0. Principle, in nniehines, is not a new mechanical power — none such liave bi'cn iliscovered lor eentiuies. That is a principle, which applies, modiiies, or conihines mechanical powers to j)rodnco .1 certain result. Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean, 17M. — McLiOan,,!.; Ohio, 1840. 10. Wiiuii a patei'.t is oht.ainod for parm "f « niachine involved with other iiart.s which may have been used before, it is essential that tii • tiew parts should l)c so distinctly }n(inted out that the claim may not cover any parts that are ohl. i^/cAe V. Speri'y, 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 255.— JuDsox, J.; Ct., 1843. 1 1. A machine, in order to give a l)arty adaii.i to ap.atent therefor, must be sub- stantially new. The machine nmst be new, not merely the i»urpose to which it is applied. Bean v. Smalhcood, 2 Story, 411.— Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1843. 12. The princijile of a machine means the operative cause by whieh a certain effect is produced. If a maclune is fornu'd by a combination of certain me- chanical powers, such cond)ination of these powers is the principle of the maclune. When a siniilar effect is produced by a combinaiiou of the same mechanical powers, though the machines may be somewhat different in their structure, in principle they are the same. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 Mc- Lean, 451.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1844. 13. A machine is patentable only whin it is substantially new. Tt/ler v. JJiOiil, 1 Codullep., 30. — McCai.eu, J.; La., 1848. 14. The mere application of an old machine lo a new process is not patent- able. Jfjid., 30. 15. Tiie word pnncijdc means tin operative cause, by whi»di a certain ef I'ect is produced ; the condiiiiation of certain mechanical }iowers; the mode of operation. Upon this question of principle we may arrive at a correct conclusion by ascertaining what is the result whieh the invention is designed to j)roduce. Whatever is essential to produce the appropriate result of a ma chine, independent of its mere form, is a matter of prineijjle. Olcvtt v. Jfaio- kiiis^ 2 Amer. Law Jour., N. S., 320. — MiLLEK, J.; Wis., 1840. 16. The word principle, as applied to mechanics, is where two machines or things are made to operate substantially in the same way, so as to produce tho same result ; as where any of tho me- chanical powers, the lever, screw, wheel, tfec, are used to accomplish certain pur- poses, the same powers being used in a somewhat different form, to do the same thing, will not bo a ditference in princi- ple. Huberts v. Ward, 4 McLean, 506. —McLean, J. ; Mich., 1840. 17. Whether tho mechanical instru- ments be larger or smaller, whether their action be horizontal or vertical, the principle is the same. Ibid., 506. 18. Machines may be regarded mere- ly as devices, by the instrumentality of which the laws of nature are made ap- plicable and operative to the j^roductiou of a particular result. Parker v. Ilidme, 1 West. Law Jour., 422. — Kaxe, J. > Pa., 1840. 10. The principle of a machine is the particular means of producing a given result by a mechanical coutrivancc. If .fi-^' '^wU/WfL/MK' ^■:^¥«5U4i 472 MAChfNE, n. r INV'llM.KS or, AND MODKH OF AI'J'UCATUIN ; HOW Bf;T FORTH. k« '"W m Mi'Fo (!<)loral>Io (lifTor^noes in forin ntid s(ni('tiii(; do not iiiukcf a (lifltTcMci' in prlnciplf. I'arkcr v. Stilea, 5 McLean, 03. — T.KAVirr, J. ; Ohio, 1841». 20. Invention, as it respt't-ts niacliine:*, is any new arriniffcmcnt or comhina- tloii of in.'ii'hincry, wliellior of old or new parts or materials, producinj^ in its arningctncnt and conihination a useful result. jffVoriinck v. Si/i/iour, MS. — Nklson, J. ; N. v., 1H51. 'Jl. The term m.ichiue includes every mechanieal device or coinliination of meclijiriical powers and devic;'s l(» per- iorm some fuiu-tion and produce a cer- tain effect or result, ('omiiif/ v. Jiitr- den, ]"> How., iiUT. — (JuiKii, J.; Sup. Ct., iHo;!. 22. A new process is usually the re- sult of discovery; a machine of inven- tion. Jfiul., 208. 23. One may discover an improve- ment in a process, irrespective of any ]>articular form of machinery; and ano- ther may invent a labor-savinjjj machine, l)y Avhieh the operation or process may be ])erformcd, and eadi may be entitled to a patent. Ibid., 208. 2-t. A ])atent cannot be for the func- tion or abstract effect of a machine, but only for the machine itself. //>«/., 208. 25. The Avord "macliine" in the stat- ute includes new combinations as well ii*» new organizations of mechanism, a'' J hence tliere may be a jiatent for new combinations of machinery to produce certain effects, Avhether the midlines constituting the combiiiation be new or old. In such a case, tlie patent is not for an abstract principle, but for the particular application of the principle which the patentee professes to have made. Wintermute x. Jiedington,MS. — WiLsox, J. ; Ohio, 1856. 26. By the term "principle" of a ma- cliine is understood its mode or ninnin., of operation, and hence there ni;iv I,,. two structures widely dillerenl in .,,,. pearanco or dimensions, and yet idcnti. (•ally the samo in principle. JAtttn v. /S/ufir/c, ym. — Lkaviim, .1. ; Ohio, 1n.jO, 27. Principle is often applied tit ;i machine to describe its movements aiKl etl'ects. Lc Hoy v. Tiithinn, 22 How. i;»n. — McLkan, J.; Sup. C't., \h'A), 28. A new machine, which .'utoiii. plishes the same end as a former one but by sulistantially dilferent means, is patent.'ible. Enmcs v. Cook^ MS.— Si'UAtiui;, J.; Mass., IH'JO. 20. The priiu'iple of a machine haa reference to its mode of operation, not to any al)stract principles involved in its proportions or motion. Jndaon v. C'ojot', iSIS. — Lkaviit, J.; Ohio, 18G0. B. Principles of and Modes of Ari'LioATiox, now kxplainud axd DESCKIUEI). 1. The i)atent act of 1793 does kdi limit the inventor to one single mode or one single set of ingredients to ciinv into ertect his invention. lie ni;iy claim as many modes as he pleases, provideil always that the claim is limited to such as ha has invented, and as are substan- tially new. Ityan v. Goodwin, 3 Suniu., 521. — Story, J.; Mass., 1839. 2. And § 3 of the act requires, in the case of a machine, that the inventor shall fully explain the principle, and the several modes in which he has contem- plated the application of that principle or character, by which it may bo distin- guished from other inventions. And the same enactment exists in g of the act of 1836. Ibid., 521. 3. This section seems clearly to show that a patentee may lawfully unite in ^•*''l MANrFACTUUfc:. 473 ABTicut or; wiiiy patkntadi.e. one i>iitont nil tho mo.U's of iipplyin^; liis iii\tiiti<"> ooiit('rn|iluti'(l, iiml all the ilirttTeiit rtortH or motliliciiliutis of iiiii- iliiiicry l»y wliifli it : i:iy l.c aiiplic.l, aiwl if siii'li wi'iH! lu'W, till' patiiit \V(jiiltl riwli tlu'iii all. .1 fortiori, this ni\v is iiiiplit'Jihle where each of the iiiachiiieH IS but lU iiiiprovemciit or iiivt'iitldii «'(Hi- diiciiili l<> tl'i' accoiniilislmit'iit of the Miiiio "t'liiTal end. \Vi/)th v. Stone, 1 Storv, 202.— Story, J. ; Afass., IHIO. 4.* Under ;5 (1 of the act of IH.'UJ, re- (luiriiii^ the inventor " to explain the (icveral ni\v, ami llic H.iiiit' kitxl of nliiiiiks iiixl S|iillill(W ll!l llic naiiiit'ii'liii'i'i' Id a patriil, «'\i'ti lliHiiL^li hiicii nialciial may lie lift- tiT adaptotl lor tlin imrpo.si'. //>/nt|»('rty (liscovfrcil in mat- ter, wlifii |) ■adically applittil in tlicc.itii- hlriiclioii of a iis«'|"iil arlii'Ic or«'omiiu'r»'t' or maniil'acliii't', is palcntaMc ; l>iit tlic prtM'i'NS tiiroiitf, 'J(i Frank, .lour., ;!d Ser., 14.--(li{iKK, .1. ; Pa., \Hy.\. L. A mere .'inaloffous use is not. pat- entable; but where a new or improved manufacture is jiroduced by new con- trivances, ('ombinations, or arrange- ments, a new principle may be con- stituted, .and the ajjplication or practice of old things will be new also. Smith, 11. Z., Ex parte, .ATS. (App. Cas,)— Moiisiii.L, J,; D. C, 185;J. 6. In the result the usu.il test is, ■whether the production of the article is as good in quality at a cheaper rate, or better In qihttltif nt the nnnie rnd. or willi botli till".!' I nseipu Mri"* 1),,,.. tliilli/ <;ttnf)itnif. Ihiil. I. 'I'lie discovery I lint a relune nr worthless material can be ad>atit;i>'i' onsly applied to a new purpose, if i),;,! result is owinjx ''• ih*-' pri-Meiiee in hidIi refuse material of certain Inyieiru'iiti* or substances, wliieli have before Ihtii iiseil for the same purpose, is not uhai enlable invention. It is not a new man. nfaclur*'. M,y,^ cess by which ii known fabric, pnulnct, or manufacture is produced in a Kftter ainl cheaper way, and the diseoverv of a new compound, Hiibstance, or iii:uiii- facture, having y iixiii^ llu« phMliitl, lliiil lilt' |mffiili''' liii'l ,1 riylif li» pniliiliit ^ tl|(' Hlllf "•!• IIHl' t)f lIlO »'w niitl val- iiiilili* urlii'Ki nl' iiitiiiiitaftiirc, tliis will air.dil ifi'tMiiid III |iifHiiiiif iiivi'iitiidi. ]\;>"fnij/\ A> /»trl>, MS. (A|.|>. Ciis.) -MoKHKl.l., J. ; l>. <'., iH.Mt. |;t. WImti! ii |)!iltiil was claimi'il inr (III :tn*'<;t'i| (■(iiiiliiiialidii of cti'liiiii |i:ii'ts ill iUK'W ardcic of iiiaiiiiractiirt', liiilcil fiivt'lrin- ciiilo ill tlio roiiiliiiialioii itself, ami it was ailiiiittcil that tlu'rc was Il(ltllill^ iit'W ill tilt' iiit'aiis or |)itit'css, ami tln'ri- wiis iiotliiii;; in tli»' rcsiiltrt vrry viiliialt'c to ciiiiiiiit'rt'i- iir triuic, it was licid lliat tlu'iv was not siillliitnt cvidcm-c of in- vuntioii to warrant, tlu' uiantiii!/ of a liiitciit. ')n; /'xjKirh., MS. (A|»ii. Cas.) -MoitsKi.i., .1.; I). ('., lH.^)!i. 14. A result, or eU'eet is not, pateiit- iildc, liiit wliere a result is in ;i greatly iiii|ii'()veil iiiaiMifaetiire, or (lcve|o|)incnt of KoiiK) WW uiitl useful principle — or wlioro tlio rosult la Huhstantially (lill'-i'- eiil fnmi what lias Iteeii elVeeted Ixfore, it may hecoiiK' tlui test of invention, iiml from wliieli invention ni.-iy he iiiferre<|. 'IWudwdl V. Fox, iMS. (.Vpp. (.'as.)- .MoKsi:!,!,, J.; I). ('., 18.5!), l."). Where the claim was i'or hjik fhtx/ of formiiiif hoop-skirls l»y applying the hoops anil tapes to oaiih otiier, while llioy arc supported in the reliitive posi- tions they arc to occupy in the finished skirt, fur which j>urj)ose a fonner Jbr each Hhapo of Hkirt was necessary, Held, that the claim was not for the former, or apparatus us such, but that the inventor had a right to claim the use of the apparatus as incidental and subsidiary to the jjructicul j^urpose of tlir idea coiiMiiiiiliii^; \i\x iineiitioii, and that therefore it wan ininiali'ria! ihiit the a|.p,iraliis n\- /'(irmtf was old. }/iinn, Ii. ./., /•> jKirt,; MS. (App. t'a-*.)-- MOKSKI.I., .1. ; l>. ('., IHIIO. 1(1. A pariy camiol claim w patent for a new mimifntiire, niert'ly liecaiise he has applied an e\i-(ing manufacture to a new use. Ilo must have invented u nttn faliric or manufacture of merchant- alile value. /'ini/ii\ h'x fntrti\ MS. (App. Cas.) DiNi.op, J,; I). C, IMUI. MANi:S(;UIITS. S«n) also liiiriKKs. 1. An author, at common law, has a property in his maiiiiscripl, and may oh- tain rcilress af^.'iiiist any one who de- prives him of it; or l»y improperly oh- tainiii;^ a copy, endeavors to rc.'ilizo u profit Ity its piildication. W/mnto/i v. /'ilrrn,» J'et.,057. — M< Lkan, J.; Sup. Ot., 1h:i4. Li. There can 1h! no t that the rights of an assignee of a nianiiscript would l»c prote(rted l»y a Court of (Chan- cery. //>;»/., (if) 1. ;{. This is presumed to l»otIie "copy- right'" recogniz(;d in g 1 of the act of iT'.Mt, ami which was intendcMl to ])0 protected l»y its pnnisions. And this prote(!tion was given, as well to books publislied under such circumstances, as to manuscript coj)ies. Ihhl., VM\. 1. Congress, by the .'id of 1700, did not legislate in reference to existing rights. Instead of siuictioning an ex- isting right, it created it. Ibil., 001. f). There remains in an autJior, not- withstanding the copyright by statute, a common law title to his works bnfor*« H 410 MANUSCUIITS. NioiiT or I'RorKRTT in; how umt. PIEti ■ "Mwrfr |>iit)Iiiii|<'iitly of till! ^latiitu, till) author of u iiiiiiiiiHcript ini;^'lit iihiaiii n-drt'Ns iij^aiiiHl out' wlm liiiil MiiircptitioiiHly ;;aitK'(l po>4Hf.xHioii of it. Jliirf/ifte V. Critfitit/cn, 4 McLeuii, .■I0|.--.M<;Lkav, J.; Ohio, IH17. 7. On f^jt'iicral i'(jiiitalili' |iriti<'i|»U'H, ri'lit'f may aiHo hi' k'V''"» mulrr like <'irciiriisf:iiici'M, by u Court of Chancery. ti. Stuth'iilM or othrrH who liavo Ikm'U luTUiittcd to take t'o|iiKH of iiiaiiuscri|ils, iiavc ii(» rij^'lit to a use wiiicli was not ill tht' coiitcniphition of thu author and tlic'iUHclvL's wIk'U Biu'h coiiHi'iit waH niv- rii. Nor cau they, liy alli)\viii^ (tthi'rH to copy tlu'Mi, <;ivt' a creator licciisi' than was vi'stuil in thi'iusolvcs. I/nd.y 303. 9. They liavf flioroforc no ri^^lit, I'ither of tlicnisi'Ivt's or l»y a sale to others, to ])riiit such nianuscriplH; and an injiuuv tion will lie to prevent such act. IbUl,^ ;ju:(, no.'). 10. An aiitlior'rt rij^lits in a manu- script will bo protected, thoutjjh they may not be complete for publication. Ibid., .'{05. 11. At common l.iw, the author of a book or other litenny property, as let- ters, has a ri<.jht to ]»roperty therein ; at least until it has been iMiblished Avith his assent. IToyt v. McKenzie, y Barb. Ch., 321.', 323.— WALWourn, Chan.; N. Y., 1848. 12. An author has a common law rijfht in his manuscript, until he relin- quishes it by contract or some equivocil act. Jiartlette v. Crittenden, 5 McLean, 30.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1849. 13. There is a difference in principle between the right to republish a jirmted work, and the exclu«i\t) rl^^ht of m, ,^^^ ihor to publiMh his own niunuMrii.i Ibid., :«7. 14. .Manuscripts cannot, without i|„. consent of the uitl lor, bu Hei/ed by Iiu Ci.'dittirs as properly. ////(A, ;)7. i.'i. The comniiiu law protetits tln' rij,dit j)f an autlior to liiii nmuuMrijii only. Ibid., 3H. 10. {{0 of the copyn;,'ht »ct ,,f 1«31, also protects such ri;,dit. /i/,/,_ :JM. 17. A surreptitious publication of an important part of a mamiscript, jm eiiiial- ly within the statute as if the ruaiiii hciipt was complete, and the whole of a mamiscript nci'd not be printed. Ibiil. 39, 40. IH. No Ien«,'th of time will aiithori/,. the publication of :ui author's oii^inal manuscript without his conseii . Ibid. 42. 19. An author may license the piil,|i. cation of his manuscript. Hut, unless a copyri^^ht is securt^d, the first piihlio tion of it will abandon it to the piihiic. Pulte V. Derby, 5 3IcLean, ;i;t2.— Mr- Leax, ,].; Ohio, 1K62. 20. An author may be said to ho ilic creator or inventor, both of the idi'iis contained in his book and the conihina- tion of wonls to represent them. Be- fore ])ublication he has the excliisite possession of his invention. tSfotce v. Thomas, 2 Amer. Law lie;,'., 228.— UiUEi:, J. ; Pa., 1853. 21. When he has published his hook and given his thoughts to the world, he can have no longer an exclusive posses- sion of them. The author's conceptions have become the common pruj)orty of the public. Ibid., 228. 22. At common law, an author has a right to his unpublished inanuscripts the same aa to any other projierty lie MVTKIUAT. OF INVKNTIOV. 4Tr WIIKTIIRIl fATINTAILI; irrWTr or OI.AIMISU. tniv rin'<«c<< *, nu<\ tl»« not of Fc1>rimry 3,1' |».;»|, 1,'iM'H liiiii It ri'iiit'ily l»_v in- j\int'ii"ii. '" protort thi< rlj^lil. Liltl»' \. J/'ill, l« How., 170. — M« I,i:a\, .1.; Slip. Ct.. iH.'.ft. ■.»;). Tlif imflior of an iiii|iiil»li>*ln'il iiijiniiHcript hiw mi ex«IiiMi\i' proporty therein, at cDrnmoii luw— :i li^'lit wliicli ,.iititlrs liiiM to ilt'li'iiiiiiu' for liiiiisi'lf wlu'fluT till' iiiariiiHcripl ^ll,•lll he piilj- Ijolii'il !it !ill; wlu'ii this fxcliiHivi' rij^lil i-i ill ii;iiii,'»'i' of Ix'iii;^ violnh'il, n court (,f luiiiily i-* Itoiind to prt'vciit tlic wroiit;, by nil iiijillirtioii. Wot dm y v. Jiiiltl, \ Diicr, ;J^<.'» — !>' i:»i J-; N' V., iHrt.'). 24, Such cniiinion law ri^hl has not bci'ii taken away or al»riiltj;cil hy the stat- iiliH which have hccu p:iM- propHHornhlp of ail n/iprifitft/ Wivriuy coinpoMtiiin from a iioii-re)ti(|i>iit alien author h'nne v. \Vli>M -v.iu-^nosn or: rrtirr AM tn iitvnmnir. rt;xltf wiMilil 1m> violatoil hy n iiiadiliio .-nik.' luriii. //»/«/., ^.'^4. A. IllU if flu' |i:ifr|i(iM> «'li(>(m«'H to gn riirllKT, titnl ciivrr lln' iiwiti'tini of w liitli a piirt of IiIm niiii'liinc in iiiii
  • , ht> I'li- lircly I'tnlimifiTu hU lij^lif to itntMMMiti' wlit'ii II ilitrcrfiil mill iiiti>rii>r in;it(>ri.'il i-* rmplovi'il, .'Ithi i's|)cci;i||y niw rt'j<'t'tt'<| l.y Jiim«'-I»' //'/'/., :t:)4, 0. WlitTi 11 |iitt(>iit«>i> oltiiini*iI n liiiiii- ini»r, III n «iiw-H«'t of wron^lit ir«»ii IiummI will) Nti'i'l, !illi*i{iii<^ tlitil III' tiiiiml, it|M>ii i'\|iih> to hro.'ik, ntxl wroii^lit iron OPOH iiiort< iliiniMi', niid thi'iTtorr roiiflntMl ]\U s|M'fiticatioii to \vn>ii;,'lit iron niicH with Mlt'cl |Mtiiit!*, //rli/, in iiii iiclidii for inri'lii^i'iiifiit npiiiiHt ii [kt- unii ii«iiii'/ ;i liitilltiirr wliolly < f Ht<'«'l, that It wan a tiiaftrr <>f iiso >A' smli a liaimiH'r wan a viola- tion c»f tlic patent. //(/'/., M54. 7. Tlie use of a material not lieforo UH(>(1 in the Hiiine Htruetiire or article, an tlu' use of putt ef's elay in the makiii;; of (loor-Uiinlis, similar knobs having; Iteen hel'ore niaiie of metal, ^hiws, wood, ite., given no claim for n patent, even thoiiixh the article be more valuable than any other of the kiml. Jfoff/ilisH v. (h'cin- irixnlf 1 McLean, 4(il. — .Mrl.KAN, J,; Ohio, 1H4H. H. Hut if the material be now, as a cunpotiml not Iteforc known, made of ditVcrctit iii'M'eilientH, that may be the 8iil>jeot of a patent.. Pn'd., 4(tl. 9. The substitution of one material for another, as chiy for wood, or metal, in the construction of door-knobs, the spindle and shank beini; the same as in ooramoii use, and the mode of connoct- ixvj; them requiriiijjj only ordinary me- chanical skill, is not i>at eatable, llotch- f-h.% V. (hremcnod, 11 How., 2(55, 267. — Nklson, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1850. 10. Till' imi» o: fmplnynii'tit in nti in. Vfiillori or iiiNchine, of maleriaU hi>i|i.r ailapted to the piirpo»i> for which it ^ iioi d ll,:ni the inaterinU of whii h b,if,,r„ made, and ihiix producing mi'nly \\ |„.(. t(>r and cheaper article, cannot eniitlo the manufacturer to a patent. Mmj. winf Hjri^orh; .MS. (App. CaN.)~.Mici. lilt K, J.; I). ('., |M,"\7. 1 1. The iiHc of new materialHin a com. biiialioii, or a chatiji^e of form, or the n.c of one opiivalciit for another, den nr:itinM must beintrodiiced. Fnrfnt.i/tv, C'^o/.p) F.awHi'p ,«WI|. — ('i'iirtM,.F.; Mas«., Ih.i;. I 'J. The iniikinj; of an in«.1riinieiif of two diHircnl HuliHtani'e«, as n hjdrctii et r of indiii-rulibcr and Nilvcr—tho bulb bein*; of hard rubber, ntid tlio j,'raduatc(l scnle «)f silver or niet.il if a uxcful result or clfecl is si'dind ihcrr- by, may Im tlie mibjeet of a putciii, though such article may have hcfori' been ni.ade entirely of iiict!il, iind iiIkh entirely of liani ridiber. Such ati in- vention is not a double iisi.. Ail'im.*, Kx p'trfr, IMS. (App. Cas.)— MruisKti, J.; I). ('., 1H«0. MKCITANTCS. Sec also SuaoEflTioN8. 1. The suggestions of the mpclDinlu employed to make the machine, or of others, as to the form or prnportiim^, are not inventions or improvcnioiits t^r whicli ft patent cojild bo obtained, tmr can they invalidate tlie patent for the thing to which they are applied. Pen- nock V. Dialogue, 4 Wash., 644.- Wasiiixgton, J. ; Pa., 1825. r^*»» ^k^"^ ^^^^w*- MKCTTANTCR. 47» Miu hsu ■t'HoitorriDNN Of i arriMt a* vt iNvii»rii»v. 2, Till' mi W"''""* '•' " "HM'Imiiii' fil' !ilti>ruti'>i -• In iIh' Innn or |tr lli«' liivi'ii. I,-, will """t '••' "iirtli'U'iil In i|i'|tri\i' iIm- invftiior nf tin- tiU'iif of ill.' in\«ri»iuM. (If iirt'<"l •'"' >'•''''"> '•' ''"' I'i'i'"'. '• iiu'iiriMiriilixi wiiliiii it; nor woiilil it )h> ^ to »ii<'li alt«>rati*Mii« ii tlUcovury wliidi Hitillil I'lilitli' till' iMcrtiiiliit' Id Ittki' oiil II itnteiil •'•!• tlit'in. Wiitmin v. Ittudni, 4 WunIi., ftsi.— W.VHiiiNtiroN, J.} Pii., I Hill. ;l. If n I'oiitniry ilofirlntt wrru fn Im- miiiiitaiui'l, \fry I'-w, if lui) imtciilH I'rtllM Iff llplirM, lllllt'^H in tlltlHf «'!IH1N wlitro till' Invt'iitnr in iil^n lIu- iiu'fliiiii itian who foiiHtriU'lH lhi« mucliiiu-. IliiJ., 4. T«i ci'iistiliilt' an iiivnitor, it is not lUHvsMUi'y tliat lii> nIioiiM iiavn i\w man- mil nkill ami (It'xli'fity tit iiiaku tho in- vi'iititin. If till' iili-an tin' l\iinislii't| Ity Iiiiii, III' is I'lititii'il to iiv •■' hinisi'lf of llii' iiici'lianii'al sUiH of ot-n IH, to carry out pnictioally IiIh t'ontrivai'(u>. Sp^trh- tniiit V. //f'fi/iiin, I iJlatflif., '200, — Ilirns .1.; N. V., \^U\. T). Till! rxerciM! in llic I'onst ruction of liny article of injjcnnily ax I skill, whicli in no more tlian that of an onli- twirv nicihanic at'i|ii'iiiit('il with thi'luisi- mss, in not the snlijcct of a itatcnl. JfiiHikhs V. (I'rceiiwofx/, 4 McLean, 4tll.— M<;Lkak, J.; Ohio, 184H. 0. The employment or Hnhstitiition of one niechatiical powei in jilai-e of an- (itliLT, to ;^ccomplish a certain ri'siilt, is t!it' mere skill of the mechanic, ami is nut invention. Rlitnch. (Hun-Stock Fnc. V. Wiirnfr, I Blatchf., 278. — Xkij*ox, J.; Ct., 1H40. 7. Perfecting an invention by siipe- iior skill in tho mechanical arrange- mciit and construction of tho parts, is but the skill of the mechanic, not the u-niiu of tin Invfiitor. f^irUturMt v. h'iHMtH'itt, 1 llliiiehf., 4w7.~-Niti*o.M, J.; N. v., I MIR. M. Till) Hul»iilution of n meclinnieul iipiivili'iit U no| II Nuli<«taiitiul clian^i>. There are many ilevicen in eoiisiruelitiii llittt can ))«« minle liy ii nkilfnl meehitnii*, ||il1l•rin^ very iiiucli in iippearaneo, but whii'h are re^ar)lei reniilt by the iis" of u b'ver, or n Hcrew, or obiiiininir power by i\ Hprinjj, or ii weight, or a pulley. T'lthiim V, /,»• lintf,i |llalelif.,4Htl. — Nki,hon,.I.; N. v., lH."4J. \K Anil any change or alteration whii'li in «u;xu«'*^'''l •'• •''*' "kilfiil oper- ator from the Working of a macliint*, ;iml ill (he eoiirse of its opci alioii — any Useful ehaiii^'e (hat may be the n siili of the practical workiiivc of the maehino — In clearly a change that belnn^jn not to the operator, but to the ori;j;iiial inven- tor, fhhf., |H7. 10. In onler to uHcertaiti and dotor- mine whether a change in the arranjije- ment and construction of a maeline is to be eonsidcn d as a substantial eliaii /»/., Iss. 11. A change in arraiii^cmi'iit and construction is not substantial, unless tliere is endiodied in it, over and be- yond the skill of the mechanic, that in- ventive element of the mind which is to be found in every invention that is tho proper subject of a patent. Ibkl^ 4a8. 12. If the invention required no more "^Twii •^^; i^www(^4fU ^ig , a^-^. :»• . -iilT !%6 K IW»:f III 430 MEDICINES. HIOIITH or INVKN'n^im '.IIKUKIN. skill or iiif^i'imily than that pn.^Hi'ssoil ^y an ctrdiiiary nim-hanic HkilU'd in tho liiisini'SH, thure is an ubsum-c ot* invi-n- tivf fiuMilty, iMid thn ]>n(('nt is iiitalitl. IWsc V. /%lps, 1 JIcAllis., 52.— Uc- Au.iHTKU, .1. ; Cal., 1855. 11. J'u'forc u patunt can issue, tho thinLf jtatoiittMl nmst appear to be of Hiieh a eharaeter as to involve or reipiiro *' invention" for its prodiietion — require the oxereiso of tJio pffnlus of an inven- tor, as eontradistin<;uished from the or- dinary skill of ;i mechanic in construc- tion. JiioiSDiii, V. Miti/or^ <£v., of New rork; ]MS.— IIai.l, J. ; X. Y., 1850. 14. If, with tlie knowledge hud by the ])id)lic, it replies the ^ombiiiation i> an inventor, within tho true intent aiiil nu^aning of the patent law. Smith, £x parte, 3IS. (App. Cas.) — Dlnl. i*, J.; D. C, 1800. 19. Tho remedying of defects in a machine by piuctical men is the work of the mechanic, of the intelligent oi>- erator, and has no connection with in- vention or discovery. Ibid. MEDICINES. 1. An inventor of a newly patented medicine cannot give it the name of an already existing and popular article, but his patent will be withheld until ho changes the name ; so held, Avherc the inventor of a new medicine desired to call it Anderson's Cough Drops, which was already well known. Jiacon's Case, 2 Opih. 109.— Wirt, Atty. Gen. ; 1828. 2. Tho fact that a party has a p.iteiit giving him the exclusive ric'ht to make, and use, and vend a particular medicine, MKDK'INES. 4R1 KIUIITB or INVGNTDHS TilKHKIN. (loci not confer >ipon him the rlj^ht to practice as :i pliysiciai:, and use such- iiii'iru'ii'i'^ ill iiny particiihir state, ex- cept in conformity witli the hi\v« of such sCite. Jorditn v. Oviriccrs Poor, 4()lii(), 310.— Lank, J. ; Ohio, ls;n. 3, A patent authorizing the ]»atentec to make, construct, use, ami vend a iiewlv discovered comiKHind of medi- cine, gives such patentee no rijjlit to piiuiicc as a physician, even thoupli oiih- :i(hninisterinjx such patcnt«'d medi- cine, witiiout compiyini^ witii tlie rej^u- liitioiis establi.*Jied by the hiws of uny ^t■ltc. Th'»n}m>n v. Staats, ir)^^id., Mii,-NKi.s<'N, -T. ; N. v., I'^^-'flK 4, An inventor of a mediciiiW^not etitillod to the exchisive right of coiu- poiiiidinij: and vending it, unless lie has obtiiiiicd a patent therefor ; without a patent, the right to make and sell is common to all. IViohijtso/t v. Wtnvhcu- ter, 19 Pick., 210. — Shaw, Ch. J. ; Mass., 1837. 5, If another person makes such in- vention of an inferior quality, and sells it and by this means brings the thing into disrepute, the inventor can main- tain no ac'ion, as there is no infringe- ment of his right, nor recover damages unless the person so maki"g and selling passes otf the thing sold as made by the plaintiff. Ibid., 217. t). Imposition and fraud on the part of such ])erson in passing off his medi- cines as those of the plaintiff, w'ould be the only ground of action. Ibid., 217. 7. An exclusive right, as an inventor, in .a composition, as a medicine, can only be obtained under the patent law, by a compliance with its provisions. Cofeen v. liriintoti, 4 McLean, 517. — McLean, J.; Ind., 1849. 8. The inventor of an unpatented medicine has no exclusive right to make 31 anil Vend it ; but if otlu-rs make and vend it, they have no right t(» sell it us the mamil:ictnre of the inventor, nor to adopt his label or tr.ade-mark. IJavinv. KnuliUl, 2 U. I.,5(il».— CJkkknk, Ch. J.; K. I., 18-.;). 1>. T|^e discovery of a fact that a given natur^jLsub.stance will, in apjiropriato njetluHls of iidministration, produce a |)articular physiological or pathological effect on the human i)odv, is not a ihinir patentable under any existing statute. Morton's Anrpst/iitic Patrtif, H Opiri., 272. — CrsniNci, Atty. (Jen.; 185(5. 10. The capacity of chemical agents to act medically on the nerves, stomach, or other parts of the body, in such man- ner, is not patentable. Ibid., 272. 1 1, The suggestion of the i»ractica- bility of performing surgical operations under insensibility of the jiatient i)ro- duced by aniesthetic agents, is not a patentablt invention. Ibid., 272. 1*2. A medicament capable of being administered in various forms and in ditterent doses, which have to be meas- ured and selected with profession.il skill, in reference as well to the (piautity of the agent as the condition of the pa- tient, so as to produce a particular ))liys- iologieal condition, without collateral injurious consequences, is not a thing patentable, either as a discovery or in- vention. Ibid., 272. 13. Neither principles, nor abstr.act philosophical ideas, or tlie natural func- tions either of the human bod^ or of matters of nature, arc patentable. Ibid., 272. 14. The classification of snbst.inces capable of producing insensibility to pain, under the head of anmsthetic, as distinguished from n.arcotic, is noi a new discovery. Ibid., 273. 15. The combination of agents of tliis '»r'i ' ~^' I :Milt' 482 ^m IMISTAKKS IN PATENTS. KFFKOT, AND OOHRKCTION Of. class with surgical operations, whetluT by iiiliaiatiuii or by any other form of adiiiiiiistraticm, ititcnial or external, is not a iiioderii discovery, but is a luiivor- 8al fact, coeval with historic knowledge. Ibid, 273. 10. The production of insensibility in the lunnan ••ysteni, by antestheti mag eiicy or otherwise, and the perforniOTce of surgical operations during such insensi- bility, cannot be considered patentable as !in art, in conlradi.stiriction to a ])rinciple, function, or quality of matter. IbuL, 274. 17. No one can have an exclusive riijht to the nianufacture and sale of a nu'diciiie, without a patent from tlie government. Comstock v. Moore, IS IIow., l*r., 422. — SUTIIKULAND, J.; N. Y., 1800. 18. Chancery will not interfere by in- junction in questions of trade-mark be- tween the venders of patent uicdicines, being quack medicines ; such questions having too little to commend thom on either side. Heath v. Wrujht, 3 Wall., Jr.— GiuEU, J. ; Pa., 1801. MISTAKES IN I'ATENTS. See also Reissues op Patent. 1. An error of exiiression, apparent on the face both of the patent and spec- ification, by which no person could be misled, will not invalidate a patent. JTneasy ••. Schwjlhill Iia?d; 4 Wash., 14. — V vsinxGTOx, J.; Pa. 1820. 2. I issuing patents, the Secretary of State, under the act of 1793, may be considered, as a ministerial officer. If the prerequisites of the law are com- plied with, he can exercise uo judgment on the question whether the patent sliuH he issuctl ; and he can exercise no now. ers but such as are expressly I'ivin him. J5ut he must act, in cdiistiuiti" the patent laws, in the spirit in wlijili these ar'i m.'ide. lleiu'e, if a mistake should be committed in the depart nicnt of state, it may l)e corrected, and anew patent be issued, correcting the ciior even thougli such act h not cxprossly authorized l>y law. The emainuiou of the new patent is not foimdcd on tlic words of the law, but is iiulisponsalilv necessary to the faithful execution of the solemn promise nuule by the United Sta^^fc the inventor. The same step ma^^Raken for the same purpose, if a mistake has been imujcently i jniiiiii- ted by the inventor, and he desires to siu-render his ])atent and have a coi-- reeled one issued. Grant \. Ilai/mond, Pet., 241, 242.— Maksuall, C'h. J.; Sup. Ct., 1832. 3. Where a mistake occurs in the copy of a patent, the Commissioner has tlm power, and ought to correct it so that it will confjrm to the patent itself" and the record. Woodtoorth v. ILdl, 1 Wood. & Min., 200.— Woodijuuv, J. ; Mass., 1846. 4. It would be the duty of the Com- missioner of Patents, to correct a mis- take in the letters jjatent when applied to, and to minute the correction on them, but it is not necessary for liiin to resign and reseal them ; as the signing and sealing are done by the same office- making the correction. Ibid, 200. 5. But it would seem to be necessary to have the Secretary of State sign anew, or assent to the amendment, as he is a distinct officer, and without sign- ing anew or assenting, does not autlien- ticate the amended letters. Ibid., 261. 6. Sembhf that a patent amendoU iu a 's;:^^ MODI-:, METHOD, OR PROCESS. 483 WHEN PATBKTABLI. is(; lid |)()w. OHsly j^iveii const nii Hi; it ill which a inistako tlcpurtuicni 1, uiid !i now X tho L'lTor, Dt C.\']>l'('sslv luaiiatidii (if nk'd on the lulisjiensahly ixi't'ntioii of y till' UnitL'd lie banie sU'p 3 purpose, if titly I iMiiniit- he ik'siri's to have a cor- V. Raymond^ lALL, Ch. J. ; iiiatfiiivl niistako, cannot oporato as to tliinl persons npiinst whom prosecutions were poinlin},', l»ut only for causes accru- iiii,'art»'r tlu- corroction. It may ho dit- iViriit if tlio mistakt' is cntiroly dericah Ihul, 201. 7. If tlic now lotters have been so ultorcd as to booonio voi.l, wlicthor the surroiulor of the original lottors, and tht" oxtonsions of thorn, would not l)0(;omc also voiat- ent itself lint his assent or ratification made afterward and in writing, as by letter, is sufficient. Woodworth v.JLdl, 1 Wood. & Min., .308. — WooDnuuY, J.; Mass., Oct., 1840. 9. If the corrections in a patent are merely clerical, it seems they will re- late back to tho date of the letters pat- ent, unless as to tliird persons, who had aeriuired rights as the p.atent stood be- fore it was corrected ; but if new mat- ter is inserted, not originally contem- plated, or correc'ions made not merely clerieal, it is questionable Avhotlier they could rdate back to the date of the let- ters patent. Ibid., 399. 10. If the correction is such as to render the pf>tent void, tho surrender of tlie former patents would be considered void also : Querj/, Whether in such case recoveries may not be had on the orig- inal patent. Ibid., 399. 11. Th- power to correct mistakes in letters patent, does not belong to the courts, but is confided to the Commis- sioner of Patents, under § 13 of the act of 1836. The court can only construe the specification and claim as they stand, :iiwl defoiniiiio the legal efVeol of tho claim. Kit tie v. Mcrriom, 2 Curt., 478. CuitTis, J,; Mass., 1855. ^lODE, METHOD, OH PROCESS. See also Effect ; Pkixcii'I-e. 1. A p." tent may be for a mode or method of doing a thing: ni(i(b', when referred tr something permanent, inoauH an engine or machine; when to i-ome- y' thing fugit ve, a method,whioh may mean engine, contrivance, device, process, in- strument, mode and manner of efibcting the purpose. A jtatent for a method of producing n new thing may apply to tho n\echanism, a new method of operating with old machinery, or producing an old substance. A patent for a mode or method detached from all physical ap- jdication, v.'oidd not refer to an engine or nuu'hino, but when referred to the mode of operation, so as to produce tho effect, would be considered as for .an en- gine or machine. The words used asx mode or mathod, are not the subject of \ i the patent, it is the thing done by tho invention. Whitney \. Emmett, IJald., 312.— Baldwix, J.; Pa., 1831. 2. In a patent for an improvement in looms, the claim was for the "comieclion of the reed with tho yard beam, and the communication of tho motion from the one to t 'le other, which may be done as specijied,^^ Held, tli.at the invention was limited to the specific machinery and mode of coraraunicating the motion spe- cially described in the specification. If it included all modes of corrimunicating the motion, it would be void, as being an attempt to patent an abstract princi- ■^<.. ■■■■p^.'" • , ■'^■■^K''} *^'%^ '^ **' H^^s^j ii, f > >^ r! »»-'Vi J--.!"-.: 484 MODK, MKTllon, Oil J'KOC'KSS. WIIKN PATRNTAIILI. f T'J- ■H'-u' « ft*-. ./ I If . j»I<', or for all j)osslblo siml imlmblc ! iiioiU's wlmti'Vor of Htjoh communicii- tlon, tlint('(». 8. An exch'.sive right cannot exist in :i new power, should one be diseovcicil, as steam, t'loctrlcity, or any other [low- er of nature. In all such eases, the processes used to extract, modify, ami concentrate natural agencies, cdiistitiitt' the invention. The elements of tliu p(»wer exist ; the invention is not iiulis- wverjng them, but in applying them to useful objects. The right of the inven- tor is secured against all wlio use I'lc same mechanical power, or one substan. tially the same. Le Roy v. Tuthmii, 1 ; How., 1 76, 1 70. — McLkan, J. ; Sup, Ct., 1852. 9. A process eo nomine, is not the subject of a patent, under our laws. It is included under the general term " useful art." And an art may roqtiiio one or more processes of maeliiiii's in order to in-oduce a certain result or man- ufiictiM'e. Corning v. Burden, 15 IIow., 207.— GuiEU, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 10. The term mac7i/«e includes every mechanical device or combination ot" mechanical powers, or devices, to per- form some function, and produce a cer- tain effect or result. But where the re- sult or effect is produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, ■s::^" MODE, MKTIIOI), OR IMIOCKSS. 485 WIIKN I'ATKNTAUI.K. thoils, or opi'ratioiiH, uro called pro- cesses. Ibid., 'Oil. 11. A now j»ro('i!HS ih usuully tlu' ru- suit of tliscovoi'y ; 11 machine, of iiivcn- tlOM. Ibid., 2(57. mj; 12. Thoartsof laimiiif,', dyoiiif;, iiiak- water-jn'oof doth, viilcaniziiii^ iridia- rii ibhor, Kiiu'llinK <"'i'«t &t'-i arc usually [ ./A/«/., 120 .;irri»'tl '"' ''y l»i'<»i'i'sst's, as (lisliiij^uish- iiiusl hu cuiiflni'il to the mniiiioi* aiul proccHrt tluHuril)C(l utiil invontud l)y him. O' Jit illy \. Morse, 15 How., llli-120. — Tanicv, C'h. J.; Sup. Ct., 185.'). 11). A palcnl caimot Ix? for an ciroct produced disiiiict IVoiii the process or machiiii-ry necessary to produce it. (;i I ironi niachiii llnd., 201 13. One may discover a new and nse- fiil iniprov emeiit m Niicl I a process,, irre- fiiictive of any jinrticular form of ma- il iicry, 20. There is a wide difTereiice be- tween one who nuM'ely invents a WW me thod or process l»y which a w ell or mei'hamcal device. AnAHT or fATNNTI OV HM\r KHIIKNI'E ,H.f,.^^ tiit> |iulilic, than tliiil |ii<>i|iirt<.| liy \\\v • 'Id iiiciIkmI. ./ii)if<\. W'l til, I'illy MS. (A|'|». (a.^*.) M(ti;Hi:ii,, .1.; I ). ('., ln:.ft. CI. Tlio tiTlHH " imftroiuiimutt in tfir trat/i" iiM a|)|)lii*iil)lt' to the law uf |ial.- «'iils, sliDiiM lie roiiniiliMtil ill a fniimii'i- cial st'iisc, ami us mcaiiiiiLj, nf (lie aili «'li>, as uf'xxt ill <|iialitv, ainlal a cIu'iiiiim- ral<\ or I>(>tt« at liii< saiiio l'at«>, or with lioth thi>st> coii^^ctiiKMU'cs partially (-oiiiliiiu'il, IcailiiiL; to a cheaper protliKiioii. /fill/, 'J.>. Ill this class of (-ascs, vihuU is coiisiilcriMl all important ; there must, how v\ cr, he evolved a priiiii|ile such as will nifidiifli/, not nu'iclv iU'tuminnitlh/, protliice a like etlVct. I hid, 'Jii. A pMleiit may he ••.laiileij ti>r a new inethoil or means ol' prodiu'ini; an old resnit. l/>'iiii't<'li v l.iitlur,, (I Miv Lcan, :1J8.— McI.KAN, .1.; Ohio, IS.-):). l!;. Where !Miy new coiilrivaticcs,c«)ni- binations, or arraiiLrcincnls arc made nsc ofin machinery, nlthiuiuh thechiel'aijenlH jin known, such contrivances, oonil)ina- ticiis, or arrani;cnioiits m;vy constitute a ».ewprinciple,and thou the applicationor practice will be new also. In such case the new and iniprove,irfi; IMS. (App. ("as.)- ,M„|; hKM,, .1.; I). ()., jHtJO. JNlODKhS. 1. Tt seems a model cannot be refer red to :uid usi'd in coiinectinn with ilir speciiication and drawings, to niak." :i maehinc, and thus determine the siitli' cii'iicy of the patent. (I'ninf v. Muhhh, 1 Law Int.it Key., iJ:), 25.— TiioMCboN, .1.; iN. v., IS'2H. 2. Under the word, patent, used In reference to the description of the tliiin,' patented, is included the iiateiil, ilic speciti<'alion attached to il, ;m(l tin modi'l and drawing, all of wliidi ;ire in be taken together, .as making uii lliu «lescription. Whitney Y.J'Jtmtiett, lialil, ;n 4.— U.\i,i)Wi\, . . ; l»a., l.s.tl. .'!. On a motion for an injunclioii, tlie exhibition of models likt' wliieli the parties eonstructed their respective iii.i- chines, will not suftico to turn the scale either way, without an examination iiite the (h'tail of the construction, cDiiihiiia- tion, and operation of all their ])aitsl)y competent mechanics. Cooper v. Mat- thews, 8 Law lieji., 417. — IJaldwi.n, J.; Pa., 1842. 4, In an action of infringement, (lie plaintiff is not bound to produce luoikls MUSK!. 487 oni'TRiniiT in; wiirit, anii ixthiit or. pflii^ lialoiilnl Hiiii'Ifs. 'I'lic ildiiKliliit iimv, liitwrvtr, |in>|..'ily uldikiii llu-m, 1,11,1 lIu'V lll<' <'iilll|Mlrlil fviilrlli'c. lliit/iiiiPii!/ V. /i'x'i'fi, 'J WixmI. & Mill., ►;| -WtHtKIUUV, J. ; MllHM., IHUJ. 5. MoiIi'Ih anil tli'iiwiiij^'K tiro n piu-t „|' tilt' I<'IH"'^« pJitfiU, .'Hill limy lie If- Hoiird to liUM'h'ari'r iiir.>iiii!ilii>ii n'M|M'('t iir'llu' iii\<'iili"'ii ilt'sniln'il in llic Mpfci- liculiiiii. /fo'fl/ V. Hinii-Hoii, (I Mow., 4f,5__\Vnoiniriiv, .1. ; Slip, l/'t., IHIV. It. Miiilt'ls iiml (Iriuviii^'M iiro tn Itc (•oii'ii III' ii p.'ili'iit. .Shii/iitix V. SollHhiinj, MS. (App. C.'is.) -Moitsiix, .1.; I). ('., IH.-.:,. 7. .Muijcis iirc il Npcrirs {)\' cviilciiri' ol' :ill iitiiris Ik'sI; <^■li(•ll!!ltt•ll to coiHliii-t jiillii' Iriilli — cviili'iirc Hiipt'iioi' (it iiiiil iiiiaH'ccti'il l»y lli«' iiiliTcslH or prrjiidicrs ul' |i,'irtisiiiis, or l»y (lie opinioiiH (llic rcM'iii'H tiicy iiiMV ol'icii In- I'liilcil) of (•xiii'i'tM. Mt'(h>i'ini<'lc V. 'I'lili'ott, 20 jidw., 400.— Daniki,, J. (DIh. Opiii.); Siip.Ct,, IKf.V. s, No witiicsscH can testify no cli'.'iily iuiil ho impart i.'illy a.s do \\w Hultji'cts (tlioii<,'li inutc) coiiciTiiinj^ \\\\'w\\ a (!on- trovcisy about, idciitil.y or dixHiniiiarity Ih lu'iidiiiijj. J hid., 40!). 9. As to tlio ipufstion of idt'iility, moilels aro not, a liviiijf, but a Huro and triui witness — dumb, but spijakin;^ (^lo- (liuiitly, as you in.'iy iiit»M'pi\!t tbc laii- giiiij:;i! it employs. To cacli piirt a voici; |)o(t'iitial is given. Ptiije v. Feiry, MS. — Wii.KiNS, J. ; Mich., 1857. 10. Experts may bo examined to ex- pLiiii, if necessary, models and draw- ings. W'mana v. N. Y. tb K Ji. It., 21 How., 100. — GiiiKB, J.; Sup. Ct., 1858. 11. Models of machines, Ji'bout which there is a (piestion, is a kind of evidence which is entitled to the hiiihest credi- bility, and wliii II, like f'-{ut'e», cannot lie. Miin-in V. ItniTttf, MS. —Lkavii'i, .1.; Ohio, iM.'iH. MiTsir. I. If a musical compoNilioii is bor- rowed from a former one, or is made up of dillereiit purls copied from older com|ioHitioiis without material M v., -'4^', w>^WWwfUM^' .j^«l^^k^^^fe|. p*,1 -f'i 48H NKW ArF'T.ICATroV. In .•».- *•«« I ^"*Wr'- , ^i WIIHN I'ATKNI'AIM.Ki «VII»;N NOT, Tlio titlo or tiniiH' in :ui iipiu'iuliit;*' f<> the ImioIv Of piece ^)^' music, ami if tlir i'(»|iyii^lil nf (lie latter fails to be pro- teetetl, the title f^ocM willi il. /A/i/.. li'JT. (I. Ill the case of a valiil copyriixlil of Hucli uorU, ami ati iiitViii^'eiiuii! ol' the title, whether the court would not lie reipiiretl to i^enire (he tide iVoiii pirai')' to proteit (lie work; quifif. Ihiil., NAMK, IMiOl'KKTV IN. Sec 'Pkaih^.mauk. NKW ArrLK\vn()y on rsK. 1. The application of an ohl {\\\\\\f to a uvtf use, without any other invention, is not a pateiitahle contrivance. Atmn V. //iHCiirif, I Sunni., 4hV. — Sroitv, J. ; 3Iass.. is;!;t. •2. Whore ii ])att'nt was lor an ini- ]»rovotnent in the applicsition of palm- leaf to Ptuttlng beds, ttc, but (he same process had been used in prepariiii; hair for like uses, //ihf, that tlu're was no invention of any new process, but only a new application of an oM process, and that it was not a patentable inven- tion. Jfoire v. Ahhoft, 'J Story, l!>t. — Stokv, J.; Mass., IHt'J. 3, The application of an old thing to a new purpose is not patentable. A pur- po.sc is not patentable: but (he machin- ery only, if new, by which it is to be accomplished. In other Mords, the thing itsMf which is patented must be new, and not ihe mere application of it to a new purpose or objeel. Ihnn v. A'*,*,,/,'. (r.).»«/, •.' Story, 1 1 1.- Sroitv, .1. ; .Mj„^ |H|;l. I. A new adap(a(ion itml tirrm,,ff. tttiiif of applying uiiii living old ariiclci for a certain purpose a«» using n|i| |,,.|,|, ofacas(or with ami (heir adaplaliun |,| furnit'ire, in a maimer before iiiikiiiim, —may be the siibjeet of letters paliin. /ll'dr V. Sprrn/, '2 N. Y. Leg. 01,^, l'.'»r..--.Ii iisoN, .1.; ('(., jHl.t. .'». \Vher«' a patentee desirilii'd |ii,| invention as an '^ improveineni in t||^ construclion of the axles ami beariiiffs of railway and other wheeled earriai^'rv" ami it was shown that the iiiveiitidii had been befoifl applied to other tar- ri:iges,allhougli not to rail way carriiim's //(/(/, (hat the invention was only miku applic.'ition of an old invenlioii, mnl therefore the patent eoiiM not be inain. t.ained. ]\'in(iiis v. /lox. «('r /'/•,,/•. /,' A'., 'jStory, 41'J,4!f>.— Stouy .1.; M-m<., IMIM. (I. The application of a known iiic. clianieal ecpiivaleiit, aH the endless screw and lever to a maehino to which it Iia<| never before lu-en applieil, as to ih,. periphery of a (piadrant, to niuvc ainl lutld the rudder of a vessel with imin ease, is not invention, although it iiiii.'lii make the machine l)et(«'r. ('orlmiir V. WiftrritKin, MS. (App. Cas.)— CuANcii, Ch. J.; 1). C^, IH44. 1. It is not a new invention, if all tlic parts of a combination had been applinl to a dill'erent object before;, and tliiv were now only applied to a new olijcd. IhtiHixj V. Jrc>iry\ ;i West. Law .buir., 155. — WooDHUUY, J.; Mass., 1845. 8. The apj>lication of a known tliin;; to a new purpose, as tlio use of rivets to fasten pjirts of a shoe instead of sewing, though such particular jtarts ot' the shoe had never before been so fast- ^^^4,. NKW Al'l'iai ATKI.V. 4(10 WNRN PATr»T«lll.l!; WllfM MlT. rntHl, U ihH ihc Hiiliif.t of ft palfiit. Jfiixinil V. <;r»r/», MS. (,\|.|., (':h.)— ('u,\N. ("., IN4; «')iiii(>ry JM not iirw in llit) aliMtrai't, yol if iiNi'ii ntnl :i|i|)lii'i| in coiMit'i'linn with lliu pnttuiral «l(>vfln|Mni'iit nf a nrwlyk l». Tin- nM'n> M|i|>lir!ili«in of nn nIM (iixcovfrcil |irlii(i|il<', |irnc|iiciii"4 a n«'\v Mini ii^xl'iil ri'tiilt, till! Niiliji'i'i is |iati-nt- iiim-liint' to :i nt-w |hii|mimi' w nn) pnl- ,.nt:iljlt'. Tj/lit V. />.*'«//, I {'.mI.. Ut.p,, .10 ihi' — Mi;t!.\l,i:it. .1.; La., iwjH. 1(1. Tin' ii«*i' nl" a ni.'ili'iiiil not iM-rnrc i| in till- siuut' Htnii'tiu'c or iutirlc, :m the tis«< of |ii>ll<>r'H clay in tint nnil^inLi of ijoDi'-knolm, Miniilar ItimliH lia< 'm^ Immii lu'lont inat'nn'lal, .u;I!Ish, wood, Ai'., u'ivi's no chiiin lor a palrnt, rvcn tlimmli (III' arlir!(> Im> iMon> valnnMr lliiui any oilier of" tin- kiiwl. lloti'hklna H«)\, J.; N. Y., IH41). 1.'^. Tilt' Mnl»sii(iiiion op one niati-rift* for anotlicr, an clay lor wood m- nit'lal, in tint const rnct ion of dooi-knolis, tlin H|iindl(> and sliank hcin^ I lie same m in coiiiinon use, a nd tl ic nioi Ic nl' i'onncct /, i Mci.caii, 4(JI.— .M< V. (Jin II wt Kit Ij:.\n, .'■; <>l'''<'i l^"^- I AlViiiiicd./x).*/ 11. A new :i|i|ilica!ioii o| a known iiriiH'lpIc to .a iM'w and iisdiil |iiir|iosc, liY new niccliaiiic.'il contrivances and ap iiaratiis, :.s tlic a|>|iricalioii of the |ii'iii- linlc fif tlic t'V|iaiisiv(' and conlr.actini; iiowtT of .'i niclairni tod, l»y dilVcrcnt dc- jrrocs (if litNit, to reinitiate tin- action of tjic (l:iiii|)ci' aiinl of a coiiiiiioii kIuvi', is the Hiilijcct of a |»;ilent. /'aoff v..SY/%, 1 IMatdif., »(i;i, 104. -Niii>»o.\, .1.; N. v., IH4». 12. Altlioii;xl> t'i«' pfiiK'iplt' liJvd before liccii ii|i|iiicd to till! l\ iriilatioti of lie.'it, aiiiltlic ide:i of tint :ipplic;itioii of kiicIi )f hiid HtOV(! liccii lit'fofo Hiit^f^ested, witliont, siidi ,'i|i|ili('atioii liaviiii^ Ik'cii made, it is not iiiati'Piil ; tlie pi-rson wlio tirst, reduces the idea to practical iipplicatioti and use is i';:titled to tlu! patent. Ifinl., 4(54. i;i. It is not a claim for a discovery of a natural proi»crly of the metallic roil, but for a new application of it l»y ineansofinechanio.alcontrivjinces, wliich is always the siiltjoct of a patent. Ibid., 404. 14. Though a combination of nia- iiii; them reipiiriiii; only ordinary me- elianicid skill, is not the Milijcct of a patent. //ofr/tki.iM V. (tri'ritifnitil^ II ll<»w., 200. — Nklmon, J.; Sup. (!t., 1 H.%(). III. The meaning of ihe rule laid down in Ifiiinr, v. Alifmlt, '* Story, i!M, and in WiiimiH V. lioH, «fc I'fiir. A'. It., '1 Sto- ry, IHI, that a new application is not ciititlol to protei'iioii, is that the appli- cation of :in old machine or old compo- sition of matter, before patented, to a new object, or what is termed !i double use, does not entitle one to a patent, connected with the new object; J»ecauso there is no now in.achinery or new com- biiiiition of itid p.'irlM. //>/(/., 270.— W ooDiu i:y, .1 T.; Dis. ()| nil. UK) 17. Ibit it is entirely diU'ereiit if < apply an old earth, or old inechanical power, or old principle in physicrs, to » new object. There is then a new form .adapted, or a new combination for the purpose — !i new sliape, consistency^ and use f^iven, or a now nunlns <>p rinidi, which, if clie.ajxtr and better, benefitfl tlie world, and desorve.s protection. //nil, 270. IH. Where u party lias discovered a new application of sotne property in na- ture, never before known or in Use, by which he has produced a now .and use- ful result, the discovery is the subject «r^ yw I.*/ ^wL^wW^ii 4m NKW ArPi.n'ATloX. WlilCN l'ATKKTAIII,K; «II»:M MOT. '!-'-.-il '**«h*' of ft |»:i(«Mif, ltnl«'|»ci)il<'ntly «>f miy |n'- •Miliiir or new arriiiii;<'iiH'iil of m;i<'liiti«'fy for till- |iiii'|M><«t> (>r ii|t|ilyinj( hikIi tww proiM'fly. /']ntte V. Silnl'if, 2 Hliilflif., 2U4.— Xklsov, J.; N. v., 1H5I. 10. Itiit ill order to entitle liiinsrlf to n pati'iil tiir.'i new iippliiation of n |iro|i- erty of nntiiro to w iiMetul purpose, In* iniiMt not only linvo eonceiveil the Idea, liiit iini'^t liy Hotne ineiiiiM, have Hiiceexs- fiilly j^iveii Hpplicalioii to the new prop- erty; liiit it i« not neci'Nxary thai tlio application nlioiiM he made hy the very \w*\ apparatus (hat can he dovlHod. Jhiif., 'liw, 'J 71. 20. The :ipplicatioii of a tiling al- ready known, to a now and iiseriil pur- jiose, may bo the Huhject of a patent, jirovided the new use is not aiialoLfoiis to the old, ami recpiin s the exereise of X\w inveiitivo faiitt|. ble. Ni'irmiiH, /i> /nirft\ .MS. (,\|,p Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,, .]. ; 1). C, |H5{). 2fi. Theiiu're use of a mechanical ntnic- ture, before applied to a particnl;ir pm-. pose (as a valve use(! as to be applicable to n/l engines, niul producing a new and useful result, if j, a jtatentahle subject. Jiufno)! v. .V.).,rc, MS. — Lk.vvitt, .].; Ohio, 18(J(). 2(1. AVhero there is nothing new in the principles involved in an invcnlinn and nothing new in the form or cliaiiic- ter of the instrumentalities by whicli it is applied, the new application is hut an jm.alogous use, and is not the suljcct ot' a ]»:itent. Alli-n, Ex fxirti; I\IS. (Apii. Cas.) — Mf.uiucii, .T. ; I). C, Ihoo. 27. The applicjitiou of Huhstaiitiallj- the same means to produce the same rp- Hult in a different form, as tubes and double walls in ;i grain bin, the siinu' having been before used in cribs and kilns, is only .a double use, and not pat- entable. MarxJi, Ex jxtrfc, MS. (App. C:is.) — MoKSKr.i,, J. ; J). V., IHOO. 28. The mere new application of an old arrangement of parts to a new pur- pose, or in conneeti(m M-ith a different machine, is not patentable. Jimcsoti, Ex parte, MS. (Ai)p. Cas.) — Moksell, J. ; D. C, 18C0. 20. The application of an old coutii '-^^.^^ ! I NEW TUIAIX 401 wan wiu im iiiiiiKHr.il ; wiiKx Ntrr. vniK'O to n ni>\( |>iir|iop)(>, nn iiiakin^ iiiir- ror» r»r IiiiIm iiclt'iiilli«-Hivi<, no thiil \\\vy \ c»ii l>u pliici'l *» ■'■'} iiiil, itr n iii()\t'fir»'y, I Story, 341.— Sroitv, J.; .Mai»»., IHIO. 7. Ill nil uction for n violation of u patent, n now trial wilt not bu ordered for surprise on account of new evitlenet*, if by reasonable diligence the inlbrma- tion might liav(> been obtained before- hand. \\'iitet a>ide and a new trial ordered, on the ground that such ver- dict was ngiiinstthe weight of eviilenec, unless the piepolideraiicc of evidt'lice i«< very clear Jiroolm v. Jlirk/ittl, 4 JMc- L«'an, 72, 74.— M( LKAX,J.;Oliio, Ifjft. 0. On a motion for a new trial, the fact that the siiiiie issues had been siili- mittcil to a former jury, who were dis- charged becur.su they could not agree, cannot bo entirely overlooked. JbiU., V2, 7;b 10. Anew trial will not bo gr.-inted for the reason that the court construed the specilic.'ition, instrad of leaving the jury to determine itii meaning. Writ- t«>n instruments are to be construed from the language of such instruments them- selves, and it is the duty of the court to 'construe the language used in the spe- cification. Davoll V. Urown, 1 Wood. & Min., 55, 50. — WoorMURv, .1. ; Mass.. 1845. 11 . If the court refuse to decide up- on the construction of the patent or spe- cification, and leave such point to the jury, such ruling is erroneous, and is sufficient cause for a new trial. Ji'mer- "^Vi •/>.-, •If' :^'^wL^yl^/ii^ ''^*?'**6^ l^i^r'-'^ I ^-t.w,. ^i I 4N VV.W TltlALH. ii III 'I if I! Ii* ■f\mi M. / / im m '^ •■■*<* .wi^i WMM WIU M OitiRHKii, wiiM ll Jury tiiul lilH>nil iIiiiiiiij^i'n, •sci>|it III It diNu of |>iit|)iil>li> <>\irtivii- ({lUK'i', WliiTO ill an iictittti for iiii iii< I'riii^ciiifiit, it wiiN |iri)Vr articti' in lar^c i|iiiiii tilii>«, iiiiii the ili'tt'n intiT- ft'i-nl Willi. S/,ji/„tiMv. /•ilf, '2 lllalilif., 8H, no.— IlKriK, J.; N. V., Ihkj. l.'J. A lu'w trial will not lie ^rant«'<|, Id'cansc of tln' ai|ini'«Nioii in fvifli'iicc «)f ii IrlhT of tli(> Coniniixoiont'r of I '.at cuts, nckiiowli'ilj;iii<; tlio rccciiit of an .ippli- cittioii for u |iat*>nt, ami introiliu-ol to hhow iilaintilV'N in\cntion at tlic tinic of its (lalf, tlioiij^'li r t'vi- dt'noo Ih Hiil»MC'(iiiontIy oti'rrt'd, |»rovin^ filaintitrs invention earlier tlian tlu>ilati> of null U'ltiT. .lllin V. J{/i4>if, 'J Wood. & Mill., 12H, 120. — WooDHUUV, J.; MnHH., 1840. 14. Nor will !i n«w trial bo j»riiiiteil be- o.liisf parol I'videiicc was refused, ^oiii;,' to jti'ovi' the contents of a letter, alleged to have been mailed to the opposite par- ty, it not having been shown that stieh letter w.'is lost, «>r had been actually re- ceived by such party. The afildavits of the parties may be received to pn)ve or disprove such facts. Ibul.^ 130, 132. IT). If one of the jury, boforo reti- ring, ask the clerk as to a I'act appear- ing from the records, and no objection is made to the question at the time, nor 1 any prele^irt* miide that (lu> iihHWt*r ilkl lli>t cori't-Mpoiid uilli llie record, i| em^ not, nt\er '.erdict, be taken ndvnntam of on » motion for u new trial. Ji^j^ I4». III. ,\ new trial nhmild not Ik> grniji. ei| for a caii««i existing at the triiil, but u liicli \(aH not Ntiited or vxct'ittcd to then. /hU., H\K 17. Damages, in a ca»»e Hubniittcd to the fair judgment of the Jury, \ul| |„,t lie ileemed eXcexnivi" bi'caU'ie tliey iiri' niore than a >\itiieNM may have teitilinl to, «>r slightly more than the court dei-m prop.r; the verdict will not be * trial, and the counsel of the purlicM ijif. fer as to what wan dune or omitted, it is for the court to decide on tlicjiedir. tereiices, and the court will not awartl a new trial if it is apparent that o injiis. tico will be likely to happen t'nuii tho verdict an rendered. //>»//., 151. 111. Nor will the <'omt order anew trial because of the neglect of the court to charge as to certain points, as rc(|iu'st- od, where the couiihcI fiirnisln d no writ, ten list of such points to the court, nor verbally called .attention, before llic jury went out, to any point omitttJ. fhhf., 161, 162. 20. It is no ground for a new trial that the court oinitteil tt) cliargu on some jioints, unless the omission influ- enced or ch.anged the verdict; hut it is too lato to reniiiK- the court of lla; omission after the jury hare retired. rfti,/., 152. 21. It is tho general rule not to dis- turb the verdict if it is according to the j ustice of the case, and the ruling ia <^; K«W TRIALS. 4N nii'iwvr dill onl, it OM^ int. Ihid^ >t )k< Kraal' lut triul, bat LtXC('|)tt'il to iiliinittxl til iiry, will lint iii«*< tlii-y iiru 11VI> IrKtitlnl ' I'lMirl ilvfiii : \h> M'l HMilu lo!«- till' ilmii- i| lini'r;iMiii:i. p II iii'w trial t'kM lift IT tilt) 11' |llirliri' niniili'il, it [nil thi'M! till- lint uwiinl !t lilt o iiijiis- 'tl iVdlll till! i:.i. •nlor u new if till' I'oiirt ts, as ri't|iU'>t- slicd no writ- ic court, nor licfort' tlu> lint oiiiitti'tl. !i now trial clmru'L' on nissioii intlii- let ; Imt it is court of lliii uire R'tiroil. le not to dis- jordinj: to the the riilint,' is WHRW WIIX MR ORIiMHRti; WMRM tt''ly writii^. It will !>•• .'(xmI Kroitiul for a imw trial. //»/«/., IVi. <.»■.• 'riioii'^h lii'iitTiilly ii « ill In* n gro mill for It iH» «y initit III' lin iliiiii'^li ilit'l iiitiiino lit' nit ntfont in rt'htioti to till* lHiiiiii(>M» ill ulili'li )ii> wiK i>nKn){iMl, iiikI iiiimIi' wIiIIi' Ii(< wit* ho ciiuiip'ilt M Hiicli i|i'i-l,ir:iiiiiii<« itrit It |iiirt ni' llii* r** iji»(tp. I hill., :i."Vrt. 'H\, \ III'W lrl:il will III* i^ruiitt'il on tliH (jriiiHiil of iii'wiy ilim-ovi'i't'il i»vi« • li'iii'i', if tltiTw li no ^roiiiKl for iinpiit- iiii? iii'}»li^i'in'i' In not nltiiiiniii^; it I'nr till' I'oriiii'r triiil, iiihI if it ii iiiuti'riiil, iiinl w Irml if il!' u'lil ti'iliiiio- in lulmitli'il -or lliiTi' ^ :\* nny iiiUill- not nicroly rmiiiil.itivo. Ami oviili'nro will lint Ih> ili'i'iiii'ii I'liiiiiiliitlvi* if it \* nx thi' llli';;!>l ii'xlinintiy li:i<« not projiiillcril till* iMM', or till' oliji'ilioii WUH iiicri'ly ll'cllllilMll, or tllO «'Vilil'IU'U iMM'tlllll' ill|. ni.'iti'iiiil, or tlio viTilirt I'lin Im' juxiitii'il without if, or till' ri'ji'ctinn wni rijflit, i to mmiu' point nr fmt imt l»iliiri' itj;tliiti'i| tliiiiiirli oil iliU'cniit j^roiiiii'lH, iir tlu' in- 1 or ;fniii' into. //»t!« t'lct V iis otliirwisi' pfovi'il, iir if tlic ' of llio former trial. //»/»'., :i.'>!». luiiipi'Iciit i'\iili'iici« \\i\* lint iiiiilirial, or no iiijii-^tifr wiii iIoim- hy It, or rii nijoilir'-clioii wasoii an iiiiinati-niu |)iiinl, or iliil not arti'i't tin* vi'nlict, ami Jiim- tict' ftppi'urn to liavi* lu'i'ii iloiii', or if thi' point 'viis frivolous, a new trial will not Itt' orilrri'il. /A/V/., loj, ir»t. 23. On a nintinii tor a new trial in an iiction for the infriiij;i'int'iit of a patent on tliu j,'roiinil of exeensive ilania<,'es, the suni ^'iveii must Ix' plainly exorbit- ant, or wlrit is sometimes ealleil "o»/<- ptijcoim,''^ to require thi* interfereiieo of the court. Ai^'rn v. /AmM, .'t Woixl. it Min., 362. — WooimriiY, J.; Mass., lsl7. 'J4. Whero n now trial Ih it«li/>- Hon V. 77if /i. The rule of law that a verdict of a jury will not be net aside where there has been evidence nn bnth sides of a (piestion of fraud, and no misdirection nn to the law, upplioH with like Htriet- ncH8 to all eases of tot"t, .as to an in- friiiijement of a patent. lUa/n'/i, (Hun- UtorK-Tiinii/H/Ftii'. v.J'i'-ofig, '2 lllatohf., VI.— »KTrw, J.; N. Y., 1847. .30. Where, in Hiieh a ease, it was Rub- niltted as a ipiestion of fact for the jury to tind whether the defendant was con- cerned with another in iisinj; an infrinj^- inj^ machine, or was merely a purchaser from Huch person of articles manufiu'- turcd under it, and tlio court instructeil the jury that tho action could not be maintained .against the defendant if ho was no more than a purchaser, and the jury gave n verdict for the plaintilT; Ilehl, there being evidence on both *^%irM*i ^*sfkttgi^' \i^\ L.L ^ipfwii.:;. i r 4ni NEWSPArEll. I'KOI'KllTY IV; COI'YIllOIIT Afl TO. %• t i iin* [•^i; i«i{ Fh, k'kIos of (lie (iiicsfioii, iunl It ii(»t apin'ar- iiij; that iho verdift wiis i-loarly iii;aiiist tli:^' wi'iuflit of llio cvliU'iico, tliat it must stand. If>ic granted in any case, nnlcas the verdi(^t is clcjirly withoMt fvidenco, or against the weight of cvidonco; nor for the jjurpose of in- trodiu'in^^ new evidence to points ]»e- ibre '. I eontrovcrsy. If>id., 71. 32. A new trial will be granted i^ ft witness lias been ini])ro|)erly rejected. liuckv. Jftrmancc, 1 IMatchf., :V2'2, ;i25. — XKf.soy, J. ; N. Y., 1848. 33. A new trial will not be gr.anted on .nccoiMit of surjjrise caused liy the rejection of evidence, when insuflicient or infornual notice had been given of the intention of introducing such evidence, or when such evidence, if introduced, would not, in the jud rnent of thecoiu't, have constituted a defence, or varied the result. J^oote v. Sihinj, 1 IMatehf., 4(56.— XKr.sox, J.; N. Y.,' 1849. .34. In the third circuit, where •» jury cannot agree and are discharged, there cannot be a second trial at the same term of the court, by anew jury sele<''- cd out of the same panel, except by the consent of parties. Wilnon v. Jsav- nmn, 1 Wall., Jr., 3u3. — Gkieu, J. ; l*:i., 1849. 35. It nnist be a A-ery extreme case where a judgment will be reversed by the Supreme Court on aceoimt of ex- cessive damages in actions ex delk'io, when the instructions of the court sug- gested to the jury the true general r>ile, and the leaving ground for mitigation, as well as against excess, and Avhen, if excessive, a new trial could have been moved in the Circuit Court. Hogg v. Emerson., 11 How., COS. — Woodbury, J.; Sup. Ct., 1860. NKWSPArKll. 1. A newspaper establishment is u subject »)f property, and so far as tlin rights of such an estahlishnu'nt are iri- vate and exclusive, this species of prep, crty, like any other, is entitled fd tliy pn.tection of the laws. /Snui'u/rn y. Xoii/i, Hopk. Cli,, 351.— Walwi.uhi, Chan., X. Y., 1825. 2. The g(M)d-will of an estal»llsli(Ml tr.'ide, the custom of an inn, and tlio right of a publisher of books may W injure:;ti'nt, (loos not lay the act coni- |il,iiiu'(l of to Weonti'K fonnum Matuti. 'I'lijs is matter of form, tlie want of which will be cured by verdiet. IVijon V. White, Pet. C C, 97.— Wahiiin*;- To.v,J.; X. J., 1 «!•'''■ 2. IJut if the ileelaration in an action for the infringement of a jjatent, j'-ro- ft'sscs to set forth the speeiiit-ation as a iiiirt of tlie grant, aeeonling lo its ten- or, liie slightest variation, as whcil for whirl, is fatal, for wliieh a nonsuit will be granted. Ibid^Ql. [In thiseasethejudge onlercda nonsuit, but the question does not appear to have been raiseil as lo the power of tho couit to order it; and a rule was subsequently gr.anted to sliow cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside. -£'t/.] 3. The courts of the United States have no authority to order a nonsuit, without the consent of the jilainlif!*, on (he trial of a cause before a jury. Footc V. Sihbii, 1 Blatchf., 450, 4G1.— Nel- son, J. ; N. Y., 1840. 4. It has been repeatedly decided th;it the courts of the United States iiave no power to order a peremptory nonsuit, against the will of the plain- tiff. Silshy V. Foote, 14 How., 222.— Ciuns, J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 5. The Supreme Court li.ive also held to same effect, in Elmore v. Grri/mcs, 1 Pet., 4G9, 1828; De Wolf v. Mayhaml, 1 Pet., 470, 1828; Crane v. Morris, Pet., 59, 1832. OATH OF INVENTION. 1. The taking of the oath by the in- ventor is but a prerequisite to the grant- ing of a patent, and in nodegi\'e essen- tial to its validity. If, th.erefore, not conformable to the statute, it is no oIj- Ji'ction to tlie patent. Whittminrc \. Cuthr, 1 (Jail., 4y;J.— Stokv, J.; Mass., 18ia, 2. Where the construction of the pat- ent and specification, as to the subject of the grant, are doubtful, tho aflldavi', if more |)recise, may be resorted (o to explain the ambiguity. It seems par- ticularly projjer to do so for restraining general expressions in the specification. Pi 'tibone \. Dcrriuf/er, 4 AVash., 217, 218. — Wasminutox, .1. ; Pa., 1818. .3. Thus, where the patent recited tho .ai)plicant to be the inventor of an im- provement in boring muskets by a twist- ed serew-.auger, and the specilication described tho manner of making tho auger, its form, and how to be used, and the affidavit confined the invention to the improvement in rnaking (fin/ers for boring musket-barrels, Jfehl, that tho patent extended only to the auger, and not to the method or peculiar man- ner, as described, of using it. Ibid., 218. 4. The oath of originality of invention made by a patentee at the time of his application for a patent, cannot be con- sidered or accepted, in an application for an injunction for infringing such patent. Such motion must bo accom- panied by an affidavit that he then be- lieves himself to be such origin.al inven- tor. Sullivan w lleJjiekl, 1 Paine, 445. — TiioMPSoN, J.; N. Y., 1825. 5. Tho taking of the oath in due form in au application for a p.itent, is not a ^r;;^ \'^sm^ •■^1 -'--i^ ■..?<* •.'^■M I 'if*: WVW^ 406 OATH OF INVENTION.— OYER, 1. OATII; NKCKHSITT OK; FORCK 01". ,._,, !*-t M -?■>«<: comlition prorodciit to tin' v.'ilidity of the piiti'iit. J>i/ir V. Jiir/i, 1 Met., liU. — SiiAW, CIi. .1. ; Mass., 1840. 6. The statute is -C 'Ht*,i iHttl/i li«Mi, 'Ww/L"^'" ''^\ .^i^WWyU^M^i Ill It* PATICXT, A.-D. '%• m ! Swift IK' '#i|g.| SS -Iff ill (IKNCRAIi NATUIlt OP URANT. W. Renewal and KrrassioN' of 608 ©. Mistakes IX CouuKcnoK or 608 !■, CONSTIUJCTION OF 1. General I'rincifiks of Consiruction. . . . 608 2. Prima Facie Authonlij of 613 3. llow far tonsirw.d l>y tlm Court 617 4. How far coMtrui'd by the Jury 619 6. Claim in, Force and Cimslruclion of. . . 521 ^. "Violation OF 626 R. When void 625 8. Tuanufku of 630 A. ScnjECT Mattkk of. Soo Art; Colobahle Alterations; CoMiuNATioN, A. ; Composition' of 3Iatti:i{, A.; Discovei'.y ; Doithlk Use ; Ei'I'ECT; KcillVALENT; Exi'EKIMENTS; Form; iMTKOVEMENTS, A.; Intent; Invention, A. ; Machines, A. ; Man- UFAcri'uuE, ARTICLE OP ; 31aterial ; Medicine; ^Mechanic, skill of ; ]\Iode, Method, or Process; Xew Applica- tion ; I'rinciple ; Process ; Purpose; Suggestions ; Theory. As to wlicn an invention is reduced to practice, so as to be patentable, see Invention, B. As to tlie necessary novelty and util- ity of a patentable subject, see Inven- tion, D. D. Right to, how lost ok forfeit- ed. See titles Abandonment, B. ; Ap- plication for Patent, A.; Prior USE BY Inventor. See also in connection herewith. Prior Knoavledge or Invention. C Grant or Issue of; by and to Whom. See Application, B. ; Introducer ; IirvENTOB, A., B. ; Joint Inventor. See also Invention, D. D. What c ranted oe secuiied bv 1. General Nature of the Grant. As to construction of Patents, oee Patent, P. 1. Tlio general law declares that fhe right to a iiateiit belongs to lilm who is the first iiiv 'iitoi, even before a iiatcnt is granted; therefore any perf^on, who knowing that another is the lirst inven- tor, yet doubting whether that person will ever apply for a patent, jiroceiMlsto construct a machine so invcntc"! by an- other, acts at his peril, and with a full knowledge of the law, that a snljse- cpient patent may cut him out of the use of the machine thus erected. Erans V. Wiess^ 2 Wash., 345. — Wasuixc-ton, J.; P.a., 1809. 2. The power of Congress is only to ascertain and define the riglits of prop- erty in the invention or work ; it dots not extend to regulating the use of it, This is exclusively of local cognizance. Such property, like every other species of property, must be used and enjoyed within each state according to the laws of such state. Livingston v. Yun In- gen, 9 John., 581. — Kent, Ch. J.; X. Y., 1812. 3. The constitution and the law to- gether give to the inventor, from the moment of discovery, an inchoate proi> erty therein, which is completed by suing out a patent. This inchoate right is exclusive. It can be invaded or im- paired by no person, and no right can be acquired in it without the consent of the inventor. Evans v. Jordan, 1 Brock., 252. — Marshall, Ch. J.; Va., 1813. 4. A patent is a bargain with the pub- "-w^ PATKNT, D. 1. 400 I HKOUnED BY ' the Grant. )f Patents, see jclaroa that the s to him who is before ti \\[\\m ny perfon, who, \ the lirst invcii- Llicr thiit porsnn Lent, proceeds tn invente'l hy an- and with i\ full , that a snhse- Viim out of tlie orcotcd. Heans . — WAsmxcrro}!, igrcss is only to rights of pop- r work ; it does Injx the use of it. local cognizance, ry other species used and enjoyed ding to tlie laws ston V. Van In- ENT, Ch. J.; X. I and the law to- v^entor, from the Ln inchoate proi> completed by Ills inchoate right le invaded or inv Ind no right can Ihout the consent \ns V. Jordan, 1 LL,Ch. J.;Va, lain with the pub- OESKIUL NATrUE or GRANT. lie in whi<'h tlie snino rules of good fiiitli prevail as in other contnK'ts. W'/u'f- „(.)/ V. Eihin'tt, Haklwin, ;tl9. — Bam)- wiN,J.; Pa-, 1H'*|1- 5. If a patent is valid, it gives to the patentee a riglit of property in the thing patented, which is entitled to full pro- tection in the courts. Ibid., 322. 6. The fact that a party has a patent friving him the exclusive rigiit to make, U!io and sell, aparticui'ir medicine, docs not confer upon i»im the right to practise as a physician, and use such medicine in anv i)articular state, except in conform- ity with the laws of such state. Junlau V. Ooeneers of Poor, 4 Ohio, 310. — LvxK, J.; Ohio, 1831. 7. A party has not necessarily a right to nse an invention in any state, merely because he has a patent for it under the United States. Vannani v. Paine, 1 Harrington, 68. — RoniNsox, J. ; Del., 18.33. 8. Where V. had a patent for a plan for constructing and drawing lotteries, and had obtained a patent therefor, but there was a state law prohibiting lot- teiios, except under certain conditions, which the plaintiff and his associates had not complied with, Held, that V. was not entitled to any relief by way of injunction or otherwise, for any al- leged use of his invention in the state. Ibid, 69. 9. From an examination of tlie various provisions of the patent law, it clearly iippears th.at it was the intention of the legislature, by a compliance with the requisites of the law, to vest an exclu- sive right in the inventor only — and that on condition that his invention was neither known nor used by the public before his application for a patent. Shaw v. Cooper, 1 Pet., 319. — McLeax, J,; Sup. Ct., 1833. 10. Every discoverer should realize ihe benefits resulting from his discovery for the period contemplated by law. Hut f fieso can only be secured by a sub- Hlatithil compliance with every legal requisite. His exclusive right does not rest alone upon his discovery, but also upon the legal sanctions whi( h have been given to it, and the forms of law with which it has been clothed. I/nd., 320. 11. A patent authorizing the paten- tee to make, construct, and use a newly discovered compound of medicine, gives such patentee no right to practise as a physician, even though only administer- ing such medicine, without complying with the regulations established by the laws of any state. 2Viomp.^on v. Stuats, 15 Wend., 305. — Nelsox, J.; N. Y., 1836. 12. The right secured to the ii.v^entor is founded on considerations of public policy, and is not to be destroyed by open infraction, or mere colorable im- provements. Smith v. Pearce, 2 j\Ic- Le.in, 178. — McLeax, J, ; Ohio, 1840. 13. The exclusive grant of a patent is the construction and use of the thing patented. Boyd v. Brown, 3 McLean, 297.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1843. 14. Where the right was in certain instruments to make a particular kind of bedstead, the exclusive right of making, using, and selling such instruments is that which is secured, and not the bed- stead, which is the product. Ibid., 297. 15. The subject matter of a patent is not partible except in respect to ter- ritorial assignments, Suydam v. Day, 2 Blatchf., 23.— Nelsox, Beits, JJ. ; N. Y., 1846. 16. At common law an inventor has no exclusive right to make and vend his ^*"vw« '■"- ^'^^k^^wM 500 PATENT, 1). 1. OBNIRAL NATURE OF OUAifT. '%#' f^.'' I'* m z ■M.. ?V ■i'v-,, '.'la.-"'* l^k tS' %. invciitiitn, iiftor ho l^as itiilillsho'l it to till! worltl. Such I'xchisivi! ri;^ht is thf creature of tlio wtiitutc, wiii.h also j)ri'- Hcrilu'H the roiiu'dy fur its vioiution. Dntlh y V. Mnyhfie^ .1 Coins., 13-17. — Snto.\(i, J.; N. V., 18 H). 17. An oxchisivo right in ft composi- tion of ninttcr, as a inolioino, can only 1)0 obtained under the patent law by a compliance with its provisions. Coffccn V. lirioiton^ 4 McLean, 517. — McLkan, J.; Ind., 1810. 18. A patent-right is insuscepliblo of loci'.I subdivision. As a privilege or monopoly, it is an entire thing, and in- capable of apportionment. BLtnchard V. Eldruhje^ 1 Wall., Jr., 339.— (Jriku, J.; Pa., 18 0. 19. The monopoly is capable of sub- division in the category of its locality, nnd in no other way. The patentee cannot carve out his monopoly, which is a unity, into a hundred or more, all acting in the same place, and liable to come in conflict. Ibid., 340. 20. The contract of the public is not with him who has discovered, but him who also makes his discovery use- fully known. If he has discovered much and discloses little, communicates to the world only one or more of the derivative and secondary truths of the principle he has discovered, he patents no more than he has proclaimed. Det- mold v. Heevcs, 4 Amer. Law Jour., N". S., 189.— Kane, J.; Pa., 1851. 21. He will not b« allowed afterward, when the extent of his right shall be the subject of ci>^ntroversy, to expand into a general expression what was be- fore limited in a particular form, and argue that he had described the whole by implication from the first. Ibid., 189. 22. It is for the parts claimed as the Invention of the patentee, and as sii,.|, particulaiiy pointed out, that ihf |,:ii. ent issues. It ov'ers no more; and uu! patentee is not boinid to prove thcori". inality of what is not iti it to make ii .j protection for what is in ii. J/n/i;,/,,,, v. llhecm, 18 Peim., 4(30.— IJla( k, Ch. J.; Pa.; 1852. 23. Whether a patented discovery is partible in its nature so as to enable tin. patentee to make separate grants of the various particulars included in h^qwnj. Hitter V, Serrell, 2 Blatchf., a83.— . Ueits, J.; N. Y., 1852. 24. It is a reason.'iblo presumption that the intention of the inventor was to obtain, and of the governnioiit to concede to him the exclusive richt of what he had invented. ICittli; v. JAr. riam, 2 Curt., 479. — Curtis, J.; Mass., 1855. 25. The Commissio!ier of Patents in issuing letters patent does not warrant the same, nor does the patent bind the government more than it does private persons ; but the validity of such pat- ent is open to inquiry, either in whole or in part, whether at the instance of private persons or of the governmeut. A patent does not conclude any body. Mortoti'a Ance-^thetic Patent, 8 Opb., 270.— CusiiiNG, Atty. Gen. ; 1850. 26. A patent when granted becomes to a certain extent a contract on the part of the government with the pat- entee, that they will, through their courts, and in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, protect hira in the exercise of the exclusive privileges which his patent gives him. JRansom v. Mai/or, die, of New York. MS.— Hall, J. ; N. Y., 1856. 27. A patent is a compact — an execu- tory contract — rather than a deed of property. Its vitality consists in the .L ^^ ««► PATENT, D. 2. 601 Wll MAY IXCLDPB liORB THAN ONiB INTKNTIUN. tiiiikiiit; f^nod by tlio iHitontco of cer- tain provisions which arc of ihc char- acter of conditiot's Hiibscquciit, as tliat ho is tlio fi'"'^' inventor ; that the inven- tion is useful ; and that tliere is a suffi- cifiit description and representation of it in the specification and drawinj^s. Smith V. Higgina, MS.— IJetts, J. ; N. Y., 1857. i!8. A patent may })o considered in tlie light of a deed from the govern- ment, and the patentee iH bound to com- municate his invention in so full and clciir a iianner that it shall bo within the comprehension of the public at the (Xiiiration of the term. The exclusive luivilcgo granted by a patent is not merely as the reward of genius, and for the cMi'ouragemcnt of useful inven- tions and improvements \\\ arts and raiinnfactures, but also embraces the imblic benetit. Page v. Ferry^ MS.— WiMCiNS, J.; Mich., 1857. 29. The limited and teniporary mo- nopoly granted to inventors was never designed for their exclnsive profit or iulvantage ; the bcus-fit to the i)ub!ic or community at large was another and doubtless the primary object in grant- iiig and securing that monopoly. Ken- dall V. Winsor, 21 How., 327, 328.— Daxiel, J.; Sup. Ct., 1858. 30. This was at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestow- ed by the genius, and meditations, and skill of individuals, and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects. Ibid., 328. 31. Letters patent issue subject to all legal objections that may be brought against them. Shreeve v. United States, MS.— LoRiNG, J. ; Ct. Claims, 1859. 32. An inventor has no legal rights or immunities under a patent, except puch as are conferred by the statute. With whatever solemnity or observ- ance of legal form it may have issued, if wanting in any substantial statutory recpiisito it is a nullity. Mcffitt v. Oarr^ MS.— Lkaviit, J.; Ohio, 1800. .13. A patentee may hold a closer mo- nopoly of his right, or ho may grant out his entire right ; but ho cannot divide his right into parts and grant to one man the right to use it in its conncctiim with, or application to one thing, and to another in connection with a diffcr- ent thing, to such an exteni as i\\\\\ pur- chasers from any of those persons may not use the fabric purchased exactly as they like; and if they please in viol.i- tion of what he has supposed were rights not granted by him. The ]Vash- ing 3fai:hine Co.. v. Earle, 3 Wall., Jr. — Grieu, J. ; X. J., 1801. 34. Goodyear, the patentee of vul- canized india-rubber, might have pre- vented any person from using his fabric for any purj)ose. But if he grants to A the exclusive right to use it to make " wringers" only, and to B the right to make "tubes" only, A cannot restrain C, who has bought tubes, from convert- ing them into wringers by any i)roce88 whatever th.at he, C, pleases. Neither can Goodyear. Ibid. 2. Wfiether may include more than one Invention. 1. Whether, under the general patent laws, improvements on different ma- chines can be comprehended in the same patent, so as to give a right to the ex- clusive use of the several machines sep- arately, as well as a right to the exclu- sive use of these machines in combina- tion, query. Evatis v. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 500. — Marsiia-li,, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. fe^ 002 IWIKN r, I). 'J. WUKIllKIl MAY IXCI.UUie MUIUS THAN UHK IXVttHnOH. (I*- l«f! m I "J 'J. A puti'iit caiiiiKt t'iul»ia<'t' viirlous and liistiiict !"i|in)vt'iii('iitH oi* iiivoii- tidiis; hut ill such (mmo tht* parly luiist taki' out Hf|»ani«i' patents. Noroaii tlio HUiiU' pati'iit hi! for t'ai'h oiio of st'vcml iiiachiiK's, each capahlu of n diHliiicl operation, and for tlieir roinhinaticn, to pnxhiee a eonueeted result. Harrett v. J/a/i, 1 Mas., 47fi.— Stouv, J.; Mass., IHIH. ;i. Wliere a plaintilt* claims neveml distinct and iiidepeinU'tit iinproveineiits in the s'/* V. »S'/o/»f, I Story, 2HH, tho court rr\it'WH tlu'ic t-asos, ami IhiMm tlwit a tiatt'Mt lor st'\«'ral iiiathiiu'^, racli l^.iiijriKlislinct ami ini>'l iK»' auxiliary li> tin- i;i. Tli«" priiiciplf him-iiis to !)««, fhiit llic iiivoiitious wlioulil 1)1' capalili' of bo- ing used in onniu'clinii, ami to Hiiliscrvi' a coiuiiioii omi. Hut their actual viii- ployiiHiit tof,'«'tlH'r is not rt'nuiri'tl to Biistiiin tho vaiiility of tho patont in which they may bo nnitod. Tho wronj;- iiil uco of oitlu-r Hoparato niachirio is a violation of tho patent pro tunto. Bid., 8. 14. Wlioro IV patent contained throo claims; (1) n inodo of convortinfjf the reciprocating motion of a piston into a continuous rotary motion ; (2) a spiral propcllinLf wheel ; and (a) tho applica- tion of a revolving vertical shaft to tho turning of a capstan on tho deck of a vessel; and tho specification showed that tho three were contrived to be used conjointly and for a coniinon end ; Held, that they could bo embraced in one patent, and that the fact that they were capable of bouig used separately and independently of each other, did not prevent them being bo embraced in one patent. Ibid., 8. 15. Two inventions cannot be imitcd in the same patent when they relate to two distinct machines. Jioot v. Hall, 4 McLean, 179, 180. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1840. 16. But the same patent may include a patent for a combination, and an in- \ciition of some of tin* p.-irts of which tho coiuliiii.'Uion consists. //n'lf., IHO. 17. As a general rule, two patentH cannot Im> united in the Natin' letters. Hut it is a well established exception, that patents may bo uiiiteil if two or more ineludeee v. lihiudy, MS. — M<> Lkan, Lewitt, JJ. ; Ohio, ihoo. 21. A party may unite as many im- provements, having relation to the samo thing, in one patent, as he pleases, but he may make each improvement tho sub- ject of a separate patent «Jf ho chooses. Ilayden, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Meuuick, J. ; .1). C, 18G0. 22. Where the features of novelty are numerous, prudence .suggests that the danger of making a jt.itent too broad by uniting questionable with plainly novel claims bo avoided by tak- ing separate patents. Ibid. V m^ '*«^L •<-{ Hu. "^^^.^^J •^c?: I) ..< *0. ^Ws' m —.^WwtVW^' il 604 PATKNT, K. F. iJ. WIAT TUI "LITTSM PAnKT** RUMUOI. ii 4 J. ^"'* Ij. WiI.VT KMIIUVi KI) IK TIIK '* LkT- TKKH I'aTKNT." 1. Under ^ 1 of tho act «»f 1700, tlio ath'^titioiiH iitnl Nii^^ciitionM of tlui peti- tion tniiNt 1)0 Niilistantiiilly rocitt'tl in tlie jKitcnt. /''r. The Hchediile or Kpecificatiiin ^„. nexed to tho letttTs patent Ih, under our laws and practice, to bo regarded u a component part of the letters pati!iil and m.iy Iki referred to to explain ur add tu the title of tho patent. lli>m\, Phncrson, How., 478, 482. — Woor^ HI UY, J.; Sup. Ct., 1H47. I 10. Models atxl drawingn aro a part , of the letters patent. Ihitl.^ 485. 11. Drawings umiexed to a patent issued under the act of IH,")?, form no part of the patent where no drawing was .'imiexed to the original patent. Wilton V. liailrofi'h, 2 Whart. DIl'. 410.— Kank, J.; Pa., 184R. 12. Pnder the act of 17».'), tho speci. (ication was not necessarily made a part «»f tho letters patent, but the inventur had a right, if he pleas(!d, to advise tlu' I'atent Onice to incorporate it into tlif letters as a part of them, hy express terms of reference. Jloiil, mill i« to lit) ntcrpri't'm;: tin- |.!ittiit, , Mir. I'ul. Oil'., l;i;i.- iH40. ilo or Bpcirtctitiiiii an. (TH ]iiit*>iit is, \iiuli'roiir i«, to l>«» rf;;anli'i| its ;\ of tho li'ttcrs |.!Uiiit, i^rrtul to to cxpliiiii or )f tliH piitcnt. Ifi'ijg V. »w., 47H, 4«2.— Wooi>. Ct., 1H47. lul (lriiwii»j»H fti-o a part itiiiit. IhitL, 485. I luitifxml to a patent ic act of 1h;17, form no icwi where iio iliawing to tho ori^iiKil patent. ilroc'h, 2 Wliurt. Dig., ; I'ii., IHtH. i« act of 1703, tlioKpt'oi- ncccsHivrily made a part itont, but till! invontor 10 ploascd, to ailvisi.' tlif ini'orporali' it into llie t of tluitii, by t'Xprojts ic'o. Jf<>ntee, and may be cor- ri-cted on application to the Patent Of* rtce. I hid., HO. 8. The provisions of g 8 of the net of I HMO, and of g of the act of I8:il), iih to the obtaining of patent*, at'tcr for- eign patents have been secured, and an to the date of the home patent, in such ease, relateH only to hiicIi patentH as uro iipplUil for here offer the issue of the foreign p.alent. J'Wufh v. /int/cm, .MS. — (JitiKK, Kank, J.F.; Pa., IH.'il. 1). Where therefore an application for a patent for an invention watt made in April, IHMH, and acted on in that moiitli, but ;i Mateiit was not actually issued un- til .luiie 20, IH40, at which time it waH dated, and a foreign patent was (d)t alli- ed in August, 18;iH. //(7(/, as the !ip- plication here was before the foreign patent, that the grant of the patent hero was under the general enactments of the law of 1h;J0, and its term runs prop- erly from its date. Ibid. 10. A patent is not void because, on its face, it does not bear t!ie same date with a previous foreign patent, taken out by the patentee for the same inven- tion ; the monopoly however is limited to fourteen years from the (bite of the foreign patent. O'lleilly v. Morse, 15 How., 112.— Taney, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 11. When a patent has expired, what- ever of invention it contained belongs to the ])ublic, and may be used by any one. McCormick v. JUaimi/, 4 Amer. Law Reg., 280.— McLean, J. ; III., 1855. 12. A j)atentee, under § 5 of the act of 1830, is not obliged to claim the whole fourteen years. lie may waive his claim to a part of the term in favor 4-; ^•V^ "^'^■w-iu^ ton J'ATKN T, I K '■**; *• ••'V ■.\- I uU. '*#WW'^ TMUUTOMAIi U1MT Of. ■Am AHI> TITU ur. •li' tliM pitblif, Ity luitt'iltttiii)^ it ; or hi' mil}- tiiko u |>iili'iil tt>r u tvriii Ickh ilmii liMirtct-M }i>iiim; or )w iiiiiy Hiu'k |)i'i)lit'- tiiMi n({iiiiiMt MtniiiKi'i'M, i'or mIk iiiontliM |»l'«'Viulllt to lllt> INMIIO, it* ill llllll lilllll lit* ]\M tiitiilt' n|)|>li('iitioti iiihI Im M«'<'kiii)( ill ^ood likilli itihl ^^ itii r«':if«<)iml)lt> ilili^tnct* to luTf'i'fl lii«t Hin'iillfulioiiH. Cunhmiin, W. M. r., /vtf-yw/-/,, MS. (ApiKCuM.) DtNLor, J.; I). C, 1858. I* TKidtnnutAi. KxiKNT or. I. Tli«> };raiil of tlu> oxuluHivu ri).{lit coiir»Triil h}' U'ttcm piitvnt, iiiflii»lr«» evi'ry umo of tlii' thiii^ |iut(>iiU'il, liy nil |ic>rHoiiM within tho tfrrilory ofthr riiil- cil Stuti's. Iti'tiwii V. Dui'/imue, iJ Curt., 371.— Cnnis, J.; Ma^s., IH.'>5. Q. Siirh j^ruiil h«)wuver, anil thf I'x- ohlMivo rij;htH cotilbrml by it, aro cri'u- ttirvH of the iiiiiiru'ipitl law of tho coun- try ; luitl iiowi'viT finnju't'honsivo ar*- itit terniN, I'luinot bu cuiiNtruod to in* duilo I'itlier jK-rHoiiH or thiii^^H, not wilh- iu till' jurisdii-tiuii uf tho patent hiWH. I/)l(f., .'ITI. ;). Whi'ro a vchhcI was built and rijj- gotl in Fruneo, and hail in umu };atVH which had boon patontcd in tho Uiiilod Stall's, //(/(/, as tho ^alFs woro plaood on thu vosHol whon sho was built, and UH part of hor origip '. otiuipiiiont, in a foreign country, by y\' soim not within the jurisdiction of >i<\'.- patont laws, that such uso was not within tho application of our patent laws, but was exempted. Ibid., 375, 377. 4. The patent laws wore not intended to apjily to, and do not extend over for- eign vessels visiting our ports, so as to effect tho structure or equipment they bring hither. Ibid., 370, 377. 5. Tho power granted by tho patent laws is domestic in its character, and necessarily contiued within the limits of llie I'lilloil StaJen. The pulont tu'i» ,1„ iiul, ami were not iiitcnded to oiHTatti bojiiiid the limitM of the I'liiiod Siatii - and the patoiileo'N right of pruinriv and exclllMive ime I'Alilif.l extend hry.,!,,) tho limilM to \tliioh tho law ilMolf Im ,.„||. fined, lirmrn v. I>uchf$nt>., )|| I|,,^ 11>^.— Tankv, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., js.-Ki. ' «J. Tho lights of property imd oxriu. Mivo UNO gniiitetl to n palontoo, dit not extend ton foreign venwl lawfully t-n. toriiig our ports ; and tlm iiMr im ,i,|,,|, vo-nol of an improvoimjiit, paloiitoil in this country, is not nil liifriii;;nii(.|ii (,f tho rights of an Ainorii-an patentee pro>idod it WU.S placed upon lior in j foreign port, and aulliori^etl i)y the laws of tho country to which hIiu bclojjum Ibid., lOH. K. Namk and Titi.k cr, 1. An inventor has a right to call liii inv.iition or patented ariicle what lie pIoMHos, provideil he do not asNuiiic an already existing and popular name, to tlu' prejudice of those who have prenc. cupiod the name. JiiwoiCt Vme, i Opin., 1()».— WiKT, Atty. (Jon.; 1828. 'J. Where the inventor of a newly patented medicine, do'iirod to yive it tho name of Andernon's ('oii;//i Jhojhi^ which v^-aa already well known, tho ).at- out was ordered to be withhold until liu should assume for it another name. Ibid. 3. The title or description given to nil invention in the grant, is never expect- ed to bo specific, but only to iiidicatt' the nature and design of the invention. The specification must bo searched fur tho exact description of what the pat- entee claims. Sickles v. Glou. Mamif. Co., MS. — Griku, J. ; N. J., 1850. 4. A patentee is not coutrollod by •^^. rATKM 1\ L. ftOT rWoN ANb ■UMRMUNNT. llw till' '^ ^^* |nilt'iil, Imt \>y iill llii« jiii- Mnt«>iit, llu* K|M>citicitliMii uimI „/j«, MS. -I.KAvm, .1.; OI.it), IHftH. 1^, I'uiou aniiSluhkqukni, you hamk IliVKM'l«>X. I. It U A pri'f iinplinii iif l:iw tli.'il when n |i!»t»'i>t huM l>«'fii nlit.iiiii'il, t-vt-ry 111:111 who Niil)!««>i|iit'iitly tiikt'M out II put- cnt i<»r n Hiiiiilnr iiiitrliiiH>, liii^ 11 kiiowl* ,.i|i'i' of tin- |)ri't'i'«liiijx f'lu't. Oilinritf V. Winkl'ij, J <»iill., ft'V. — SroK\ , J.; MutH., '.*. It \f> hIho !I prfHiiiiiptioii of t'lkct that eviTV niiiii, h.iviii;; within his po\\frlln> iiu'aiH "I' inl"'>iiiinlilhi!i' any oih< on tlif piil)li(' I'o'onU huH ai'tjiiit'cd a prior ri}?ht. Ihid,, T).'!. .!. ,\ ijrant of a Hul»st'(|iit'iit putent for an iiivciiiion is an e.stoppfl to tlu> pat- I'litcu to Hct up any prior {{rant for i\w lainu invention which is inconNi.Ht*'nt with tlu' ti'rnirt of i\\v last j;rant. linr- Pit \. //"//, 1 iMas., 17a.— SiuKY, J.; MUH.S., |H|H. 4. Wlu'ther, when n patent is once (jiantcd to any person for an invention, lie can i«'>:;ally luqiiire any rij^ht under a HiiliHiMjiU'iil patent for the same inven- tion, unless his lirst patent be repealed for Hoino original defect, su that it might truly be said to be a void patent ; query. Ibid., 47.J. 5. If several i)atent8 are taken out by ^ Hoveral patentees for 11 several invention, and the sanjc patentees afterward take out a joint patent for the same as u joint invention, the parties arc not absolutely estopped by the former patents from as- serting the invention to be joint, but tho former patents are very strong cvi- dencu a){iunMt the Joint invuntloii, /A/*/., 474. U. A patenti'O ennnot have in u»o At the name lime two valid patent* for tho Mume invention. The lirst, while it re- maim* unrepealed, it an entopprl of any future patent for the Mnme invention. Oflinrne V. Aimntmnj S'uil t''it ^ot ri*l of before a second can be taken out. If u prior pati'iit is not surr»'ndered, repeal- et|, or tleclared void, it is a good ile- fence to an action on the second patent. iVo/y/rt V. Jfuutinytun, I I'aine, 354. — Tu«)Mi'HON, J.; N. Y., lH2t. l». Xor will a verdict of a jury in an action on the second patent avoid thu first one. //>/-^ 8f?5^,^^.«fe^ '.WMWOw^- m>^^\miJ^ 608 PATENT, M.-P. 1. OONSTKUUTION Of, OE.Si:nAL PRINCIPLES AS TO. l),^Mt^ 8^ 11. But if such patents were substan- tially for the Hunio invuntiun, query^ -wiifthcr a diHchiinicr of all title under the first patent to tlio material parts of the invention for which granted, would not operate as an estoppel to any reme- dy for a violation of that patent. Ibid., 12. If a person has obtained a patent for a thing which he claims to have in- vented, he cannot at any future time chiim another patent for a substantial part of the same thing. Smith v. Ely, 5 McLean, 88. — McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1849. 13. A patentee cannot take out a sub- sequent patent for a portion of his first invention, and thereby extend his mo- nopoly beyond the period limited by law. O'ltcilly V. Morse, 15 How., 114.— Ta- JfEY, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 14. But the validity of a patent can- not be impeached upon the ground that it is an improvement upon a former invention, for which the patentee has already obtained a patent. Ibid., 122. 15. No subsequent patent can take away rights secured by a prior pat- ent. ISicklcis V. Tlhston, 4 Blatchf. — In- OERsoLL, J.; N. Y., 1857. 10. Where an invention is substan- tially described and claimed in one pat- ent, it cannot be made the subject of a claim in a subsequent one. Sickles v. The Falls Co., 4 Blatchf. — Nelson, J.; Ct., 1861. ]fl. SuBnEKDBB Ain> Reissfb of. See title Reissub of Patent. IW* Kenewal and Extension of. See title Extension of Patent. 0. Mistakes in Cohruction or. See title Mistakes in Patent. P, CONSTBUCTION OF. 1. General Principles of Construction. See also Ambiguity; Patent, D.- Specification, A. 1. The patent determines the nature and extent of the thing granted and He- cured to the pater^.co, and the piaiiiiifr can claim no right which is not incliuleii in the patent, even though the patent in issued under a special act of Congress and is not as broad as the law under which it was issued. His right is under the patent, and not under the law. Evans v. Uaton, Pet. C. C, 340.— Washington, J.; Pa., 181G. 2. The grant can only be for the dis- covcry as recited in the patent and spec- ification. Ibid., 342. 3. The doctrine of patents may truly be said to constitute the metaphysics of the law. The diflSculty lies, not so much in the general principles, as in the minute and subtle distinctions which arise occasionally in the application of those principles. Sarrett v. JIaU, 1 Mas., 472. — Stouy, J.; Mass., 1818. 4. Tliough the construction of the patent must certainly depend on the words of the instrument, where the words are ambiguous, there may be cir. cumstances which ought to have great influence in expounding them. The in- tention of the parties, if that intention can be collected from sources which the principles of law permit us to explore, are entitled to great consideration. Therefore a special act may be referred PATENT, P. 1. 80» 0ON8THU0TION Or ; OENIBAL PRINOIFLKS AS TO. as woU iis tlio piitentcc's petition, jj„,l„ueli;icoii^(trm-ti(>n should 1»«« given totlie grant as will make it, with .such documents forming a part of it, not con- traJictory with itself. Eocms v. Eaton, 3 Wheat., 500, 512. — Maushall, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 5. The patent and specification are connoeted together and dependent upon each other for support. The specifica- tioii should maintain the title of the pat- ent • the latter should not indicate one thing, and the former describe another, as the subject of the grant. Sullivan V. liedjlehl, 1 Paine, 450.— Tiiompson, J.jN.Y., 1825. C. In deciding on the sufficiency of a patent, the court inspect the whole de- scription as one paper, which they as- sume to be true in fact, and if found to be in conformity with the requisitions of the law, so that it appears with rea- sonable certainty, either from the words used or by necessary implication, in what the invention consists, though the description may be somewhat obscure, or imperfect, or defective, in form or mode of explanation, as claimed by the patentee, they will adjudge it sufficient, Whitney y.Emmett^ Bald. Rep., 316. — Baldwin, J.; Pa., 1831. 7. Where the invention is substan- tially new, is useful to the public, and the disclosure by the specification and other papers is made in good faith, and fairly communicated in terms intel- ligible to men who understand the sub- ject, juries ought to look favorably on the right of property, and to find against a patentee or plaintiff only for some sub- stantial defect in his title papers or proof. lUd., 322. 8. Patents for inventions are not to be treated as mere monopolies, odious in the eyes of the law, and therefore not to be fivorod ; nor are they to bo con- .strued with the utmo.st rigor as atrictia- aimijuria. Amca v. Howard, 1 Sumn., 485.— Storv, J. ; Mass., 1833. 9. Tlie Constitution of the United States, in giving autho/ity to Congress to grant such patents for a limited peri- od, declares the object to be to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, an object as truly national, and meritorious, and well founded in public policy, as any which can possibly be within the scope of national protection. Hence it has always been the course of the American courts — and latterly of the English — to construe patents fairly and liberally, and not subject them to any ovor-nice and critical refinements. Ibid., 485. 10. If the court can clearly see what is the nature and extent of the claim, by a reasonable use of the means of in- terpretation of the language used, then the patentee is entitled to the benefit oi it, however imperfectly and unartifici- ally he may have expressed himself; and for this purpose particular phrases are not to be singled out, but the whole is to be taken in connection. Ibid., 485. 11. It is a clear rule of our law in favor of inventors, and to carry into ef- fect the obvious object of the constitu- tion and laws, to give a liberal construc- tion to the language of all patents and specifications, ut ra magis valeat quam pereat, so as to protect, and not to de- stroy, the rights of real inventors. Jiy- an V. Goodwin, 3 Sumn., 520. — Stoey, J. ; Mass., 1839. 12. Under the laws of the United States, patents for inventions are treat- ed as a just reward to ingenious men, and as highly beneficial to the public. They are therefore clearly entitled to a liberal construction, since they are not .-'wLfwj.^fUwf' ^' 510 PATENT, P. 1. COXSTBUCTION Of, QENEUAI, PIUNTIPLKS AS TO. m^ '■*.„, bw!f' v., •**^«/- grsmtod as restrictions upon the rights of the oonimunity, but are granted " to promote science and the useful arts." Jiliinchird v. Spragne, 3 Suum., 539, 540.— Story, J.; Mass., 1839. 13. Every patent is a monopoly, and nothing can justify it but the natural right of property which a man lias in th(! products of his own labor and in- genuity. It ib in derogation of common right, and should be strictly confined to the case excepted. Kemper, Ex parte, MS. (App. Cas.)— Cbancii, Ch. J. ; 1). C, 1841. 14. In "patents" the court looks through the whole patent and specifi- cation, in order to ascertain what is the thi ng claimed and patented in it. There is no artificial or universal rule of inter- jiretation of such an instrument beyond that which common sense furnishes, which is to construe the instrument as a whole, and extract from the descrip- tive words and the claim what the in- vention is which is intended to be pat- ented, and how far it is capable of ex- act ascertainment, and how far it is maintainable in point of law, supposing it clear from all ambiguity. Carver v. Braintrce Manuf. Co., 2 Story, 44G, 447.— Stoky, J.; Mass., 1843. 15. In conptruing a patent we are not to look alone to the descriptive words contained in the letters patent, but we are to construe those words in connec- tion with the specification which is al- Avays annexed to and made part of the letters patent. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story, C21.~Stoby, J.; Mo., 1843. 16. Therefore, Avhere in the specifica- tion the patentees began by saying that they "have invented a new and improv- ed combination of machinery for separ- ating grain from the straw and chaff as it proceeds from the threshing ma- chine," Ifehl, that this showed that tlio patentees claimed the entire eoinbimi. tion of the machinery. Ihid, Vi-j,^, 17. In the summing up of their i|,. vention, they also claimed four distinct improvements in the machinery, //,;,/ the two being construed togetiier (aj they should be), that the patentees not oi.ly claimed the entire maeliinoiv in combination, but also the four improve. ments enumerated. Held, also, that if they are their invention, there is no ol> jection in point of law to their claim, Ibid., 021, 622. 18. A patent must be construed ami passed upon according to the laws in force at the till H 01 i granting of it, The subsequent repeal of such acts can- not impair the right of property exi>tiiig in a patentee. J/l- Clurg v. Khiriskml 1 IIow., 206. — Baldwin, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1843. 19. The patent law gives a monopoly, but not hi an odious sense. It takes nothing from the community at lar-je, but secures to them the greatest benefit. To remunerate inventors for "their time, ingenuity, and expense," the law- gives them the exclusive right of selling their invention for a limited T ■ ^^ ^ 'I , and to secure them this remunej i ' ... lib- eral construction should be gi. .. ^n- « law. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 M.I ;in, 437. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1844. 20. A liberal construction is to be given to a patent, and inventors sus- tained, if practicable, without a depar- ture from sound principles. BavoU v. Brown, 1 Wood. & Min., 57. — Wood- bury, J.; Mass., 1845. 21. Sometimes the preamble, even, may be resorted to for ascfntaining the object of the specification, sometimes the body of the specification, some- times the summing up, and sometimes PATENT, r. 1 fill tion, sometimes ificatioii, some- and sometimes CONHTKUCTION OF; OKNKRAL PRINCIPI.KH AH TO. the formal clause at the end of the spco- ificjitioii. (U'liorally, all of tlit'tn are gjjaniiiK'd togotluT, uiiloss the formal diiusc seems exi>lieitly to exclude the rest. Ibkl.^ 59. 2:.'. Matters described therein sliould be considered in a practical manner, and not be decided on mere metaphysical distinctions. Ibid., 00. 23. One patent, though very useful and economical in the nianufacturo or use of another invention, before patent- ed, c.innot be treated as a part and par- cel of such other patent, so as to ren- der available in an action upon one of such patents, long possession under and recoveries upon such other patent, where the several patents and speciticitions do not refer to each otlicr as being auxiliary to one another ; but each patent must stand upon its own merits. Ilovey v. fitemns, 1 Wood. & Min., 295, 296.— WoooauuY, J. ; Mass., 1840. 24. A patent is to be construed or tested by the acts in force at the time of its issue. Hogg v. Emerson, How., 479._\Voom»uuv, J.; Sup. Ct., 1847. 25. The true rule of construction in respect to patents and specifications, is to apply to them plain and ordinary principles, and not to yield to subtleties and technicalities imsuited to the sub- ject, and not in keeping with the liberal spirit of the age, and likely to prove ruinous to a class of the community so inconsiderate and unskilled in business as men of genius and inventors usually are. IhicL, 485. 26. The description of an invention by the patentee in his own language, as contained in the specification, is the hi^liGSt evidence of the thing or instru- ment which he claims to have discov- ered. Many v. Jagger, 1 Blatchf., 377. —Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1848. 27. Patents, securing to inventors the just reward of their labor and industry, are to be construed liberally. Theso exclusive rights are not to be viewed in the light of odious monopolies, but as the result of a policy at once bene- ficent and wise. Parker v. JStiles, 5 ^IcLean, 54. — Lkavitt, J.; Ohio, 1849. 28. The whole instnunent — that is, the patent, embracing the specification and drawings — is to be taken together ; and if from these, the nature and ex- tent of the claim can be perceived, the court is boiuid to adopt that interpre- tation, and give it full effect. Ibid., 57. 20. A patent-right is not a monopoly in the general sense of that term. Tho inventor takes nothing from society, — he confers upon it a benefit by his labor antl ingenuity, and the law designs to give him nothing more than a com- pensation therefor. Bloomer v. Stolfey, 5 McLean, 102. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1850. 30. In construing a patent, regard may be had to what is contained in a caveat in the first specification, and in the original ]>atent, and a broader con- struction should not be put on the lan- guage of the patentee than the whole subject matter, and description, and na- ture of the case seem to indicate as de- signed. No fancied construction trav- elling too far on a ni . and doubtful ro.ad, is to be adopted ; bui, raliier what is natural and clear, considering what already exists on the same sub- ject. Smith V. Downing, MS. — Wood BURY, J.; Mass., 1850. 31. The drawings as well as the Avholo specifications may be looked to for ex- planation of any thing obscure in tho patent. And the drawings may be re- stored when burnt, and if appearing in some respects erroneous, may be cor- i< nl "---;CS '>w^MMm^44«j< 612 PATENT, P. 1. CONHTUL'CTION OF; GKNERAL rRINCII'LKS A8 TO. J ^N||IP Ik .A. m rcctud. IF'xjf/ V. J'Jmi'r.ii»i, 11 I Tow., 000.— WooniiiKV, J.; Siij). Ct., iHoO. n2. Tliu ()|)iiiioii of t'XpurtH (•.•uinot be received as to I lie fonstnictioii of u pat- ent. Experts mny bo examiiicil as to tlu! mcaiiiiii^ of tenna of art, on the principle of cuique in sua arte crcden- dmn; but not as to tlie construction of written instruments. CornuKj v. liiir- den, 15 IIow., 270. — GiuFii, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 33. I'atonts are granted " to promote science and useful arts." Tliey are not odigus monopolies or restrictions on the rights of the public; and courts are bound to give the specification a liberal construction, and not annul its benefits by formal or subtle objections. Good- year V. JRailroads, 2 Wall., Jr., 303. — Geiek, J.; N. J., 1853. 34. The patent shotild be carefully examined to find the thing discovered, and if it be clearly set forth, the paten- tee should not suffer for the imperfec- tion or vagueness of the language used. The description ought not to be repug- nant to the specification, but if it hon- estly sets forth the nature and design of the patent, it is suflicient. Ibid.., 364. 35. The specification must be looked to for the full disclosure of the discov- ery and the extent of the inventor's claims. The extent of the patentee's rights must be judged from the whole instrument taken together, and not from any one sentence. Ibid., 364, 365. 36. The construction to be given to a specification should not be too strict and technical, but the proper inquiry is, has the inventor communicated to the i>ub- lic the manner of carrying his invention into eflfect, so that a skilful workman can carry it into execution. Stephens v. Salisbury, MS. (App. Cas.) — Moksell, J.J D. C, 1855. 37. A patent is not a monopoly. i\ monoimly takes from the public what belongs to it, and gives it to the ^'rantet. whereas the right of a pateiitut! vn^u entirely on his own invention or discov- ery of that which was useful, and wliieh was not known before. The law givi's liim the exclusive right and use of the thing invented or discovered as a coin- pensation for his ingenuity, labor, nnd expense in producing it. Allen v. Hun- ter, JMcLean, 300. — McLean, J.; Oliiu 1855. 38. The words of the specification aio to be taken together, and they are to be so construed as to give effect to tlio meaning and intention of the persmis using them. Words are not to be dis- torted, so as to affect what may be sup- posed to have been the intention of the one using them ; but they are to have a reasonable construction, as connected with the sentence in which used. /i/(/., 307. 39. A specification as to a riiciniial compound, is not addressed to those who are not acquainted with chemistry. Ibid., 307, 310. 40. Courts will always construe spe- cifications favorably to the patentee, but they cannot make a new specification with more extensive claims than the original, or stop the course of inventors by a fonciful application of the doctrine of equivalents. Sickles v. Glou. Mamif, Co., MS.— Grieb, J. ; N. J., 1856. 41. It is a presumption of law that what a patentee does not distinctly as- sert to be his invention was known be- fore. Smith V. Higgins, MS. — Betts, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 42. In the construction of a patent, the entire specification ia to be taken together, as embracing the particular description which the law requires of - ''^SMv^ S^i^. !^,C- PATENT, P. 2. 613 OONHTUUCTIOX OF; PRIMA FAt'llC AUTilORITT. tho discovery, the manner of construc- tion niicl tlio cluira of the patentee. TIh'V emanate from tho same pen — the one cannot contrjulict tho other. I^age V. Ferry, MS.-^Wilkin8, J. ; Mich., 1857. 43. The intention of the inventor, so as to effect the object designed, is to (Tovern the construction of the language employed. Courts look to tho manifest (k'si"n in order to remove any ambigu- ity arising from the terms employed ; but tliis ambiguity must not be such as would perplex an ordinary mechanic 'n tho art to which it applies. Ibid. 44. Patents are to bo construed liber- ally— tho rights secured are to be pro- tected against any substantial violation. Formal and subtle differences are to be disregarded, Imlay v. Nor. wJ! ^ ' ^^1 •:ia'.' v4»\ 'umi "^■^ '*4. '"■' '•■<*» »f:> 014 PAIENT, P. 2. CONHTRUCTION OF; PRIMA rACIB AirTUOHITT. 1« l4' -'.-x; wwC" Jirookn V. not operate nfj^.iiiist them. Jiivkiidl, W McLean, 440 J.; Ohio, 1H44. 0. A patent iKHUOtl under the patent actH (tfinee IHHO), re<|iiirinjj un exami- nation of nkilfiil persons into tlie Hpeei- ficntion and the snltject oi* the elaim, affords more evideiieo of the originality of the invention, than when granted as a matter of course, under (he former acts, and only 8U{iported by the oath of the patentee. Orr v. lituh/cr, 7 Law Kep., 407. — Si'i!A(iiK, J.; Mass., 1844. 7. The patent itself is sufficient evi- dence that all the preliminary steps re- (piired by law in reference to the grant or issuing of it, were j)roperly taken. Wilder V. McCormick, 2 IJlatehf., 34. —Beits, J.; N.Y., 1840. 8. A joint patent is prima facie ev- idence that the invention was joint, but Buch fact may bo disproved at tlie trial. Ilotchkiss V. Greenwood, 4 McLean, 462. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1848. 9. The i)re8umption of novelty and usefulness, arising from W\g prima facie character of the patent, may be rebut- ted by affidavits on the application for an injunction, where the patent is not ancient. Whether it may be when the patent has been renewed under the act of 1830 ; query. Wicker shaffw, Jouca, Whart. Dig., vol. 2, p. 413. — Kane, J.; Pa., 1848. 10. The provisions of the act of 1836, give a (7««s«-judicial character to the ac- tion of the Commissioner of Patents; and it has accordingly been generally and justly held, that the patent itself is to be taken ii^ prima facie evidence of the nov- elty and usefulness of the invention specified in it. Wilson v. JBarnum, 1 Wall., Jr., 349.— Kane, J.; Pa; 1849. 11. The patent is prima facie evi- dence that the patentee is the original inventor or discoverer of the thing p.-n. ented, and that the Bamu is now anil useful, (jli)odyear v. Day, MS. — (iiuKit J.; N. J., 1H52. 12. A patent issued, groimdcd on fli^ oath of the patentee, \v, prima fnri,;y,y. idence in an action of infringement of such patent. J'^ultz, Ji'x prr, p. 2. 61S roNHTRiroTioN or; rHiMA rA(;iR autiioritt. the thiiijT j»;it. ic in iit'w lunl ', MS.— (iuiKll, rountU'tl on the }»'ltmt fiU'ii] vv- iilViiif^i'inent of Kx parte, MS. J. ; D. C, 185;t. ' IVftO, n imti'iit evuU'iicf ; that >c act of ITOii, I not re-L'nactcd viW not rt'cciviMl sveti jirhiKi fwk ■cntion ])iiti'ntt'(l the i)]iUiilitVwas facts, in order to ttbeact of 18110, item, and under i cxaininution— a prima facie evi- [tho facts asserted urdcii, 15 How., Sup. Ct., 1853. n a patent suit, ted to him, should ik(; presuini)tion, oia an iuvestigiv of his invention, reason of his pat- •ily a patent is pri- lat the lUseovory ieful, if it is appiv- ation that the pat- 1 which is mani- which cannot be •tent for the court .perative for such les, 3 or 4 Blatchf. 1854. ■nt laws, the claim patent is issued, borough examina- tion, madi' by cxnminerH appolntcil for that iiurpose, j^ives to tlic patciitt-t' a fiiiiiKi /(K'iti right to the invention or discovery claiiu«'il. lie Avho diHputeH dtich ri};ht, must produce (^viden«'o to couiiturlmlaiice (liat legal presumption. All'ii V. Jfuntci; McLean, 304, .'lOo. — McLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1855. 17. Tlie prima facii; right of a pat- oiitee in a patent is derived froni the ex- nniiiiation of the invention, before i)at- eiit is issued, by one or more examitiers, and a comparison of it with the patents issued in this and other countries; if found to be new and usefal, and the ap- plicant swears be is the first and origi- nal inventor, thatent is only jyrima facie evidence as a patent gra-ited by our own government, tluit the invention was of some prob.'ible value. GatliiKj V. Ncwall, 9 Ind., 582. — 1'kkkins, J. ; Ind., 1857. 24. The ])atent is prima facie evi- dence that the thing patented was new, .and the invention of tiio patentee at the time the patent was granted. Gib' herd V. Baffot, 4 Blatchf. — Ingkusoll, J. N. Y., 1857. 25. Since tho act of 1830 pntontM stand upon a diflfcrent footing from that upon which they stood formerly. Upon an application for a ])atent, the oflicers of the Patent Office give their judgment, and that judgment \s prima facie a good one ; when one party contests that, and offers another patent in opposition to it, both parties stand upon an equal foot- ing. Cony. Rub. Co. v. Amer. J'Jlai^. Cloth Co., MS.— GniEU, J.; I'a., 1857. 20. A patent when produced in evi- dence, is prima facie evidence that tho patentee was the inventor, that tho thing patented was new and useful, and that in the specification there is a description in such full, clear, and ex.act terms as will enable any one, skilled in the art to which it appertains, to put it in practice. And such prima facie evi- dence must control until it is rebutted by countervailing evidence. Poppcn heusm v. N. Y. O. P. Comb Co •^Ui i M^l Ml y^. m »i<^.. T ri^ „«/wWUO; %K,I] *^M-U4 5te PATENT, P. 2. ooNvrnuoTioir or; niUK facii authomtt. Ip4 4 lilatt-hf. — Inukkhull, J.; N. Y., 1858. '27. Tlu! p.itcnt itHi'lf in prima fwle. ovlflcnco of ail factH upon which it i« fountl(>(l, and roqiiires no support until it iH iinp(>ucli(Hl, or attctnptod to ho iin- poaclic'cl. Sherman v. Champ. Trans, Co., 31 Verm., 176. — UKi>riici.u, J.; Vt., 1858. 28. A patent in prima facie ovidcncc that the thing deHcribcil in it is now, nnd muHt control the question uuIosh countervailed by the defenclant's evi- dence. Waterbtiry Jiraaa Co. v. N. Y. d> Brooklyn Brass Co., MS. — Inkek- 80U., J.; N. Y., 1858. 2d. A patent in prima facie evidence that the prant of right in it is valid, that the things described in it are new and useful, that they required invention, and that they were the invention of the patentee; and 8uc]ijt>rtma^at7'e evidence must have full effect unless rebutted by sufficient countervailing evidence. Pot- ter V. Holland, MS. — Ingkksoi.l, J.; Ct., 1858. 30. The patent furnishes a presump- tion in favor of the originality of the invention described in it. Bell v. Ban- iels, MS. — Leavitt, J.; Ohio, 1858. 31. The patent is prima facie evi- dence that the patentee is the first and original inventor of the improvements described in the specification. Gahoon v. Binff, MS. — Cliffobd, J. ; Me., 1869. 32. The patent is prima facie evi- dence that the patentee was the first in- ventor of the thing patented, which will control in determining the question of fact unless there is evidence to rebut this presumption. Bartholomew v. Sate- yer, MS. — Ixoebsoll, J. ; N. Y., 1859. 33. There is a presumption arising from the patent itself in favor of the novelty of the invention which it cov- ers. Hut thiM proHuniption may ho ovpr< come by showing that tht! tliiipf f,.,,) been previously known, i'oknuui \ lAiaor, MS. — Lkavitt, J.; Ohio, Issg 34. The patent itself ntforils iriwn facie evi proved by parol, or when it does, if tho- facts are proved or admitted, and are without dispute. Davoll V. Brown, 1 Wood. plied as if the construction fixed by the ^' ^^\ <:^'k 610 I'ATKN'r, 1'. 3. ooMvrftUOTiov or; by t>b oovrt. If 1^ ^4 tp"''\ 'I ^ Kli- It ir^i *^^ court liitd boon iiicorporulcd in llio Mpec- illcHtioii. //>/(/., 0. I'.'. NVluT*!, tluTcforo, tho court hi'M tli:it lli«' (iiU'Htioii ut' iiiul)i}{ui(y was li niixoil (|ut>Nttoii ot'liiw iiud t'lict, ami it-tl • fact to be found hy the jury, iiidieat- iii^ the rule of law that wouKl ^ovi-ru ulu'ti lliat fact Hhould lie asi-ertaiiii-d, J/tl/al- cntti for u coniiM)Nition of inattor, an well as in pntcntH for niachineH, a (|ues- tion of fact ft)r the jury ; but when the Hpecification of a new coinposilion of matter givuH only the naine^ of the uub* stances to bo mixed togetlier, without Htating any relative proportion, it is the duty of the court to declare tho patent voiil. Wood V. l/nihr/till, 5 How., 5. — Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1840. 14. The question whether the patent irt Hurticiently clear and certain in its de- Hcription of the invention is one of law only in part, or so far as regards tho construction of tho written words used. Jlo[/j/ V. JhJineraon^ How., 484. — Wood- iiuitv, J.; Sup. Ct., 1847. 15. It is for tho court to decide whether the patent, as to the de8crii>- tioii of the uivcntion, conforms to the requirements of tho law. — Parker v. Stili-a, 5 McLean, 55. — LEAvirr, J.; Ohio, 1849. 16. What a pateutcc claims as his in- vention is a question of law, and one to be determined by the court, in order to give to the jury a guide to apply to tho facts in the case. Jiuck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf., 401.— Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1849. 17. The interpretation of the specifi- cation of a patent is a matter exclusive- ly for the court, \tho must explain it. The import of the iuMtrtunent is purely a (|iiesli(>n of lnw. I\irk;raiit. Wutrrlmry Jifana Co. V. N. )'• «6 JiriHikhfn Ilntnn C'o., MS.— IxtiKUhoi,!,, J. ; N. v., 185H. L'(). In tlic trial of a suit for the viohi- tioti of a patcnt-rigiit, the court cannot be coiiipdU'tl to H'Ci'ive thi' testimony of experts us to tlie proper or h'>j;al con- struction of the patent. A jililgti may, however, obtain information from them if liu ilchirc it, on matters whicli he (locM iKtt clearly apprcheml. Wi/nma V. ^V. V. tb K li. li. Co., 21 How., lUl. — (iKIKIt, .1.; Sup. Cl., 1H5H. '.'". The court tletcrniincs what the patent jiurports to j^rant. Jidrtholomcir V. Savi/er, MS. — iMiKUsoLi-, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 28. The construction of a patent falls to the court as a matter of law, depend- ing soaietinics, perhaps, upon the tcch- iiicttl use of terms, if there bo such, wiiicli have a use different from the usual and ordinary accei)tation of theni, and thus far may be matters of fact for the jury. Jolmson v. Itoot^ IMS. — Si'BAUUK, J. ; Mass., 1858. 4. Sow far construed by the Jury. See also Juby. 1. Whether the specification contains the whole truth, and, if not, whether the concealment was with intant to de- ceive, and whether it is as to a material point, are questions for the decision of a jury. Reutgen v. Kanowra, 1 Wash., 171.— Wasuington, J. ; Pa., 1804. 2. Whether n concealment in a pat- ent arose from any fraudulent intent, i« a ipiestion fur the jury. (I'ruy v. Jaincn, Pet., C. C, 401.— Wamiu.nuton, J.; Pa., 1817. :i. It is for the jury to de.idu wheth* er the specilication is st) uncertain as not to enabh> a skilful workman t(» un- derstand the impr«ivement, and carry into execution the plan of the inventor. In deciditig such (|ueHtioii, however, the jury will give a lilieral, (*ommon sense construction of the directions cont.ained iu the specification. DatHn v. Palmer^ 2 Brock., :jOH.— Mausiiai.l, Ch. J. ; Va., IH27. 4. The «'0urt decide, as to the sufll- ciency of a patent, wlu'ther the state- ments are sufiicient in law ; it is a ques- tion for the jury to decide whether the statements are true in fact. The court does not look beyond the patent and other jtapers, but the jury decide from the Jtapers, the evidence of the wit- nesses, an inspection of the old and new machine, and the models, to ascertain whether in point of fact the spccilicii- tion, us nnide out at the trial, is sufii- cient. Whitney v. Emmett, Jiald., '^ 1 5. — Baldwin, .1.; I'a., I8ai, 5. Objections to a patent, th.it the specification does not sufticiently de- scribe the invention ; or that the inven- tion is not new ; that a renewed and the orighial patent are not for the same invention ; or that the patent was ob- tained with a fraudulent intent ; all in- volve matters of fact which belong to the province of the jury, upon the evi- dence. Carver v. J} rain tree Manuf. Co.^ 2 Story, 441. — Stokv, J.; Mass., 1843. 6. It is a question of law for the court whether the invention is sufticiently de- scribed iu the patent. But if technical ...''jsJii tt'-'^- ;; 020 PATENT, P. 4. covvniuoTioN or; it tn* ji'BT. trrmti nrv imrcl, cviilcnco mnjr bo ^Ivcn ill t>x|tliiimlioii of Niich tortni, niicli)uiic t<» roiiHtrilct tho ttiiii); ill (jiK'Nlioii. ihitl., 442. H. Thf court in I»ouih1 to Ntiito wliut ill law ix till' itivi'iitioti claiiiii-tl, ho t'lir iiH the coiiNtriictiiiii of tliu piitciit ami the Hpcciiicatioii in coiiiTriwil. Hut tlu' jury nvo to juil^'o of tln' iiu'aiiiiij^ of wohIh of art, and tt-rlinifal pliruM'H in ooiiiiiirrrfiiiiil iiiaiiiifurturfH, and of tlu Hurrouiidiii;{ cirtMiiiiHtaiuH'H, whioh may afToct, ('iilur){i>, or control lIu' iiu>aniii){ uf the words of |lu> patriit and H|>i'rilli!a- tion. ]\'ti«/ifmrn v. (t'ould, :J Story, 187, 158.— Stouy, J. ; Miihm., IH44. 0. Till- Hurtlrit'iiry of the dcNcription in a Kpccitication is, in ^oncral, in pat- ents for a ooinposition of matter, as Avcll ttH in patents for macliini's, a ques- tion of fai^t for the jury. Witod v. l/n- (fer/iill, 5 llow., 4. — Tankv, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1840. !U, It iti for the jury to decide, wheth- er from the evidence, the description of an invention in si patent is siitliciently full, clear, and exact, to enable a skilful mechanic to construct the thing de- Bcrihed. Parker v. Stiles, 6 McLean, 65.— Lkavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1840. 11. Where the eft'ect and operation of mechanical contrivances, which are matters of skill, and to be determined by experts, enter into the question of the extent of a patented combination, the question is a nuxed one of law and fact, and proper to be determined by the jury under the instruction of the court. Foote V. JSilsbi/, 1 Blatchf., 458, 465.— Nelson, J. ; K. Y., 1849. I '2. Where tho qtiniitinn nn !»» tli,. ,,. tent of a conibitiatioii an pati>iiti a claim was for a eoinhj. nation which did not point out mnl i|i>ft. igiiate the particular elenieiits wliich couipimed the combination, but unly i|i>. clarud that the combination wan maile up of HO much of the described iiiai>liiii. «ry ai effected a particular result, /A/,/, it was a (|uestion '>f fact whirli »( ilm described partH o essential to that result ; and to t tent, not the con- struction, but the application, of tliii claim should bo letl to the jury. ,Siliiliy V. Fuote, 14 How., 220.— CuKTis, .1.; Sup. Ct., 1H62. 14. The jury are to deterniiiift from the facts in a case, whether the specili- cations, including the claim, are so pri'- cise iiH to enable any skilful person to make the thing described. Jiuttin v. Tayyert, 17 How., 85. — MiLka.n, J.; Sup. Ct., 1854. 15. The application of the facts to the sj»ecitication or patent, as constnii'J by the court, in for the jury. Tecsey. Phelps, 1 McAlIis., 40. — McAm.ibteb, J.; Cal., 1855. 10. It is a question of fact for the jury, whether the description in the patent is ho vague or uncertain that a competent workman, in the particular busineoH covered by the patent, could not, from the Hpecitication and drnwini,', construct the machine. Page v. Ferry, MS.— WiLKiNS, J.; Mich., 1857. IVXTKNT, P. 8. 8)1 or; otAiM w. I'tt'i'miiif' rniin 17. Il I* «'x<'I»«lv»'ly th« provlni'o of th(* J)>''y '** it'*<'«'rtitiii ami (h'trriiiiiH' wlii'tlxT tli*t piiti'tittH* irt till* ori^innl in- VfDtor uf tlitt tliiii({ patt'iitf*!, aihI wIi«<- tb«'r it fin)>rnc«'H tiitt tl-iii^ um«>m>ripti«m in a n|R-fill('ulioii i** Hiillldi'iilly full, <'l««r»r, ami cxiii't, to t'liablo n (mthoii HkillctI in tlii> nrl to conslrnct tin- invention, in » (iiioHtion of li"'t •"•■ til" jory. Jm/unn V. .Voorj-, MS.— Leaviit, J.; ()lii«», 1860. 5. Force and ConHtrurtion of Clitim. 1. Tn all casoH wlioro tlio y.' utcc oljiiiiiH any tliin;? an liin own inviitinn, iu hin »|)i!ci(ication, coiirtH of law «'annot rojoct till' clainj ; anil if inchnh'il in tin- iKitont, ninl fiMMitl not to lt»^ now, tin- mWwl is voiil, liowi'viT Hinall antl ini- iiii|)(irtaiit such assorted invontiiui may be. il/iio'/y V. FMe^ 2 MaH., IIH.— Stouy, J.; Mass., 1H'20. 2. WluTo a i)atenti'o in his HiH'cifici- tion stiiti's anil sums up th« particulars of his invention, and his invention cov- ers thoin, ho 18 couHned to Buch HUtn- mary, and cainutt aftcrwanl bo permit- ted to sustain his patent by Hhowinj^ tliat Home part which ho claims in his summintj up as his invontion, though not in fact his inventicm, is of Hlight value, or iinportaiuu- in his p.'itcnt. Ibid,, 118. ."J. The summinj^ up of the invontion ill a ripecltlcation is a limitation to the tliiiij,' patented. Whitnc/ v. JiJ/nmett, Dald., 31.'>.— Ham)Wkv, J. ; Pa., 18;U. 4. If the court, taking the whole p.at- eut together, can porceivo the nature and extent of the claim, it is bound to adopt such interpretation, and give it pfll'ft. Kt/iin V. ffooiftfiin, n Muniti., fl20. — Srouv, .?.; .MasH., Immo. A. Whi*r«« II pat« diNclaimod thit mechanical powcrN by which the inovo* mcnts of liiN invcnlinn were obtained, and claimed "an IiIn in\i>ntioii the meth- od or moct, and that the patent was for a machine, not a function or principle detached from machin«'ry. Jtlani'lutrd v. Spraijuf, n Suinn., 630, 63 7, 640. — S toky, J. ; Mass., IH.'JI). 0. In order to aHcertain tho true con- struction of the specitication, as to wh.it is granted by the patent, we must look to the summing up of the invention, aiul tho claim therefor asserted in tho Hpc- cification ; for it is tho duty of the pat- entee to sum up his invention in clear and determinate terms, and his sum- ming up IH coneluHivo upon his rights and title. Wyeth v. Statu, 1 Story, '28.').— Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1 840. 7. Tho patentee must describe, with reasonable certainty, in what his inven- tion consists, and what his particular claim is. Ibid., 280. 8. Resort can bo had to tho introduc- tion of the specification, as well as the summing up at the close, to ascertain the true extent of the claim. Homy v. Stevens, 1 Wood, tfc Min., 294.— Woou- BUKY, J.; Mass., 1840. t/. Where there is a summary setting out the claim to some particular novel- ty, that is to govern; but if it refera %t J v.->i ./J m ^^ *^ T r .Am. A u m W^ ^^'^ P*M *»«' "'" ^^ h '■'.>!!(1 w -t^-'-^i 628 PA TENT, P. B. c()S8iiiu(nioN or; ci-a'm ik. •'^t^:& -I :•- ^'-l 'WTl :C^. to (itlicr j»:irts of the sporificution and tliawitigs, those jiurts arc to Ix* exiiinin- cd in coimtH'tioii with it, in ordur to as- fortain what is ohiiinod in the Huiinnary llovcy V. tStercnn, ii Wood. & Min., 21. — WooimiiiY, J.; ]\Iass., 1H4«. 10. Tho claim in a specification waH, that any incj^uhir Hiirtacc or form conld 1)0 turned l)y the maeliinu like the model, but in fact a si|uaru Nhoulder could not be turned; J/ihf, that it was too remote and extreme a d*'fcct to vitiate the pat- ent. BlanchariVit Gun-Stock I'lcruin;/ Co. V. Warner, 1 Blatchf, 280.— Nki,- sox, J.; Ct., 184G. 11. If ;i patentee chooses to cover the material of wliidi a part of his machine is made, lie entirely endangers his right to prosecute when a ditteicnt and infe- rior material is employed, and especially one rejected by himself. Aiken v. Jie- mis, 3 Wood, tfc Min., 354. — Woon- BUKY, J.; Mass., 1847. 12. Where a patentee claimed a ham- mer in a saw-set, of wrought iron faced with steel, alleging that he found upon experiment that all steel hammers were much more liable to break, and wrought iron ones more durable, and therefore confined .his specification to wrought iron ones with steel points. Held, in an action for infringement against a person using a hammer wholly of steel, that it was a matter of doubt, whether the use of such a hammer Avas a viola- tion of the patent. Ibid., 354. 13. The claim is the most material part of the specification. It is the at- tempt on the part of the inventor to describe tho very thing which he sup- poses he has invented, and for which he asks a patent. Many v. Jagger, 1 Blatchf., 378.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1848. 14. If an inventor sums up the par- ticuhirs of his invention, he is contiiitMl and held to sucli summa'-y and his |);ii. ent must stand or fall by it. Pttrkcr v aSVy//-s, 3IS. — (iiUKU, J.; Pa,, 1850. 15. Tho claim or summing up is not to be taken alone, but i:i connucliuu with the spjcification and drawiiifrs. Tho v.holo instrument is to be con- trued together ; but the other ])iirts arc to be looked to only for the purpose of correctly interpreting the claim. Jirouh v. Fiakc, MS.— Spuaulk, J. ; MaMg 1851. ' ' 10. Where the claim does not point out and designate Mie particular de- ments which comi)o >! a combination but only declares that the combination !«< made up of so much of the descrilnd machinery i\s eflects a particular result, it is a q lestion of fact which of the de- scribed ^i.'vrts f.re essential to that result- and to this extt.it, not the construction, but tho application of the claim should be left to the jury. Silshg v. Foote^ 14 How., 226.— Cuims, J.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 1 7. TJie use of a known cipiivalent is an infringement ; although the i)ateiitce has not expressly claimed eiiuivalents, he is understood to embrace thcni, and in contemplation of law does enihraco them, without any express mention. By am v. Farr, 1 Curt., 2G3.— Cuktis, J.; Mass., 1852. 18. But the patentee is not obliged to erabr.ace equivalents in his claim. He may, if ho choose, confine himself to the specific ingredients or things, and expressly e> dude all others ; or express- ly exclude some or one other. If lie does so, the use of the thing disclaimed is no infringement. Ibid., 203. 19. It is for the parts claimed as tho invention of the patentee, and as such particularly pointed out, that the pat- ent issues. It covers no more ; and the ^^^4.. PATENT, P. 6. bT,i ouxHTiaoTiuN or; ulaiu in. lio is conliiieil ry and his pat. ■ it. Pnrktr\. 1*11,, 1H50. iiiiiif,' up is not in ooniiec'tiuii and di-iiwiiitrs. in to bo t'on- other i)arls uru the ))iirpose of ) claim. Jii-oiih LK, J. ; Miiss,, does not point particular de- a coinhiiiation, he combiiiatioii )t' the descrihi'd artiouKvr result, kluc'h of the (le- al to that result; }io construction, he claim should 'sf>!/v.Foote,U ; Sup.Ct.,185'2. ^vn c(iuivalent is gh the patentee led C(piivalents, )race them, and does embrace )ress mention. 203.— Curtis, itatc'iitee is not bound to prove the orig- inaiitv of what \h nut in it to uuiku it n |irolc»5tion for \v ii.ii, is in it. Jlolliday s.liheenh IS Penu., 400. — Black, Ch. J.; Pa., 1852. 20. The claim, or surnni'.ng up, is not to bo taken ulono, but in connection with the s|)ccification and drawings; the whole instrument is to be construed together. But the latter aro to bo looked to only for the purpose of en- jil»lin<' the court correctly to interpret the claim. Brookn v. Fiske, ]5 How., yi5.— Catuon, J.; Sup. Ci., IbS.l. 21. A patentee may so restrict bis claim as to cover less thai' bo invented, or may limit it to one particular form of machine, excluding all other forms, though ihcy embody bis invention, yet such an iiiterjjretation sboukl not be put upon his claim if it can fairly be construed otherwise. Winana v. Den- mewl, 15 IIow., 341. — CuKTis, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1853. 22. Patentees sometimes add to their claims an express declaration to the ef- fect thivt the claim extends to the thing patented, however its form or propor- tions maybe varied. But this is un- necessary. The law so interprets the claim without the addition of these words. Ibid.^ 343. 23. A patentee may limit his claim in his specification to one particular form of machine, and exclude all others. In such a case he is secured only to the par- ticular form claimed. The patent law was intended to secure to the invent- ^ or his whole invention or discovery, but not unless he claimed to be secured in the w^hole. If he claims only a part, each part is only secured to him. Amer. Pin Co. v. Oakville Pin Co., 3 Blatchf. 193; 3 A. L. R., 138.— Ingeksoll, J.; Nelson, J., concurring; Ct., 1854. 24. No more can bo secured by the |)atenteo than ho has invented or dis- covered ; and no more can bo secured than is claimed to be secured in the specification. Ibid.., 138. 25. The phrase " or tlio equivalent therefor," in machinery, extends to im- provements substantially the same as those described involving the 8.ime pri'iciple, and embracing all alteration.s merely colorable, but does not include a claim to any other invention equiva- lent or equal to the one described — this would be to include all modifications or improvements iii the machine. McGor- mick V. Mimuy, McLean, 557. — Mc- Lean, J.; 111., 1855. 20. In construing a claim we must look at the entire speci'-cation and drawings, and view each part by the light thrown on it by tlie wliole; ami though there is an erroneous descrip- tion as to how a certain part enters into a combuiation, if there is enough left clearly and certainly to correct the mis- take, the patent will be sustained. Kit Hex. Merriam, 2 Curt., 479, 480.— Cur Tis, J. ; Mf'ss., 1855. 27. Formerly a strict construction was given, in this country and in Eng- land, to the claims of a patentee, but a more favorable and liberal view is now taken of his claim. He nmst describe it within the law ; but courts do not go beyond the law for technical objections to defeat it. Allen v. Hunter, Mc- Lean, 311. — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1855. 28. When a patentee claims several distinct improvements, he must estab- lish his right to each, to sustain an ac- tion. Ileinrich v. Luther, 6 McLean, 346. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1855. 29. Patentees should not, in their claim, confound specific with generic description, and so set up a claim to a Mof yu ^*%»!f '*«i»i^ M'k^^\ Li '"Hl-i'V '**^^-A,^i Pi» PS ••^'U4»fUf^ltH' II i li ^u. .i^ '] I (i'24 PATENT, P. «. OOMHTHUOTIOW OF; OI.AIII IN. grout rliiM of *' iiif?H, wlii'n their triui olaiiii is only (■ ;i limilcil viirioty of tho fiftH^. L'ltuinfi' Vane, 7 Opiii., i;U. — CusiiiNd, Atty. (Jen.; IH55. ih). All Hiu'h ov<»r-l»roii(l pn'tenHioiiH nvnil notliiiig iif^niiiHt the puUlio, mid impair tli<> HhTiif^tli of wliiitever tlu'ro iiifty truly bo of orij^inal in the imrticu* liir ]mtonl. /"A/VA, 1M4. 3L When tlio oxiict nature and ex- tent, (»r ossenoe of tlio elaim oan l»e por- oeived, tlie ooiirt '\h bound to adopt that interpretation of the patent, and to give it fill etfoot. Wintermute v. Ilediny- tOH, MS.— Wilson, J.; Ohio, 1856. 32. Tn determining the construction of the claims «)f a patent, the court eho lid refer to tlie whoU> specification, and consider tlie whole in connection, although the claim at the end of the specification is usually intended to de- fine and limit the extent of the claim made by the patentee. Itanaom v. May- or, cDc, of N. K, MS.— Hall, J. ; N. Y., 1850. f.3. The construction of the claims of a patent is .a question of law exclu- sively for the court, and not for the de- termination of ? jury, unless there m.ay be technical terms or terms which need explanation by the evidence given be- fore the jury. Ilnd. 34. Where a claim may be open to objection of any kind, it is the duty of the court in construing it, to so con- strue it, if it can be done, without doing violence to the language used, as not to affect the claim of the patentee, but to give him what and all he has actually invented — in other words, to make the claim commensurate with the invention actually made. Ibid. 35. While it is true that the summing up is to be looked at to discover the parts of the machine the patentee claims as his invention, still if any ihin,, is noeilod to give the propn- mtani,,,, of expressions used in the cluim, tlu, previous portions of the Hpeci(lciiii„n may bo referred to for such ('X|iluiin- tioiis as may bo necessary to undoiNiand the office and purpose of that which Ih claimed as new. Morn's v. Uarrclt MS. — liKAvirr, J. ; Ohio, lH.^8. ;Ul. If by an oxamination of tlio»|»(v. ification ami applying it to the then ex- isting state of the art, it can be Iciiriu'il wh:it the invention was, tluMi the cliiitn whi(rh is designed to be a coikIciihciI summary of the invention, is to \w con. Htruod so as to be coextensive with the invention, if that can be done witlioiii d«»ing violence! to its language. Wltti). pie v. Middlrscx Co., MS. — Spkacli; J.; Mass., 1850. 37. In construing the claitn of a pat- out, the court take into view the wlioleof what precedes it in the i)ateiit, and jilso such extraneous facts jiresented by tiio evidence as may aid in giving the true construction to the patent, particularly documents from the Patent Office wlilth preceded the granting of the patent it- self. Johnson v. Itoot, MS. — Si-kagie, J.; M.ass., 1859. 38. Whoie there is any doubt as to the extent and meaning of the inven- tion of an appl.oant, the whole specifi- cation should be taken together in con- struction, and not confined to the more words of the claim. The phraseolo- gy of a claim "/br the jntrposcs set forth," embraces the Avhole specifica- tion. Sprague, Ex parte, ]\IS. (App. Cas.) — MousELL, J.; I). C, 1859. 39. Where necessary to explain any ambiguity in the summing up or claim of a specification, resort should be had to the body of the specification, that the whole may be taken together, that PATENT, R. 028 (WNHTIIUCTIOII or; WUKN VOID. in (tiipport ff ♦'"' clni"« n lil»cml nnd not •i nlri''t (M)iiHlnirt'nin hIioiiUI |)r(>v»il. ruhii'ui, Ex parte, MS. (App. CaH.)— MOUSKIX, J. ; I>. C\, IHOO 40. |{iit there hIiouM not 1)0 pjivon any forced couHtructioii to tlio lioily of tliti Hpccillfution, HO UH to extend the clnim of tho imtciitiU! ; on tlio contrary, only wiiiih II construction oiif^ht to bo nindo us, consiHlcntly with the fiiir im- port of language, will make tlie chiiin cocxtenHivo with the actual dincovory. Ibiil ||. Violation of. See Actions, A. ; Comiunation, W. ; CoMPOsrrioN ok Matikk, JJ.; Dkhiuns; Form; Inkki.n(jkmknt, U. R, WllKN Voiu. Sec also in connection herewith, Aiian- DONMKNT, IJ. ; Defkncks; PnioB KNOwLBuaK; Pkior Usk. 1. Under § 1 of the act of itoo, if the allegations and suggestions of the petition are not substantially recited in the patent, the i)atent is void. JCvana V. Chambers, 2 Wash,, 120.— Wash- ington, J.; Pa., 1807. 2. If an inventor bo not an inventor of the whole machine, but only of an improvement thereof, and the patent is for the whole machine, the patent is too broad and is utterly void. Whittemore V. Cutter, 1 Gall., 479.~Story, J.; Mass., 1813. 3. If an inventor obtain a patent for an entire machine, when he is the in- ventor only of an improvement thereon, his patent is too broad, and therefore void. Odiome v. Winkley, 2 Gall., 63. —Story, J.; Mass., 1814. 4. If a patent be taken out for an en- tire machine, when the invention con- HiHtH only of an iniprovcnicnt on such machine, the whole jtateiit Ih not void, but the patentee is not entitled to more than his improvement ; nor i*" wWww4v4^' ^^i^iu^ '44mi. ^.- ri26 PATENT, R. ..rni<^ S/fJIl! CONBTRUOTIOy OF; WHEN VOIP. that it is broader than the invention. Ibifl, 470. 11. The nature and extent of tlic improvement mtist be clearly and ful- ly stated, or the patent will bo void. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wash., 462, 455. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1818. 12. If a combin.ition bo not wholly new, but up to a certain point has exist- ed before, and the patentee claims the whole as new, instead of his own im- provements only, and takes out a patent for the whole machine, his patent is void, for it exceeds his invention. Moody v. i^/aA-e, 2 M.as., 118. — Stouy, J.; Mass., 1820. 1.3. A specification which mixes up the old and the new, but does not ex- plain what is the nature or limit of the improvement which the party claims, cannot be sustained. Eoans v. Eaton, 1 Wheat., 434.— Stoby, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1822. 14. Where the specification does not describe the invention so as to show in what respect the plaintiff's invention or improvement difters from what had been known or used before, the patent is void. Langdon v. De Grroot, 1 Paine, 207. — Livingston, J.; N. Y., 1822. 15. If a patentee include in his pat- ent .an original p.atent known to have been previously patented to another person, with his own improvement for which he is entitled to a patent, the patent is void. Thrner v. Johnson, 2 Cra. C. C, ^87. — Cranch, J.; D. C, 1822. 16. The specification described the invention " that it essentially consists in attaching the packet to the steamboat •with ropes, chains, or spars, so as to commtmicate the power of the engine from the towing vessel to vessels taken in tow, and kept always at convenient distance; the manner of a|i).ljiii.r (i,g power varying in some measure with the circumstances ;" Jleld, that iho de. 8crli)tion of the invention, if any ihui,, was, was too vague and uncertain ; tlio patent void. iSuUivan v. JiedJieU, i Paine, 450, 451. — Tuompson, J. ; N. V 1825. 17. If a patent embraces the discov. ery of another jjcrson, besides or with the invention or discovery of tlio paten- tee, it is too broad, and is void, ^^u^ son V. Bladen, 4 Wash., 682, 583.— Washington, J; Pa., 1820, 18. If a patent covers what was in use before, and what belonged to tho public, it is void. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock., 310. — Marshall, Ch. J.; Va., 1827. 19. If a party suggest an idea as to an invention, which is indispensable to its operation, and which in reality con- stitutes its whole value, and another adopts such suggestion and takes out a patent therefor, the patent is void, as not being the Invention of the paten- tee. Thomas v. Weeks, 2 Paine, lOii.— Thompson, J. ; N. Y., 1827. 20. A patent must not be broader than the invention, or it will he void, not only for so much as had been known or used before the application, but also for the improvement really invented. Whitney V. Emtnett, Bald., 314.— Bald- WIN, J.; Pa., 1831. 21. A patent can be declared void by a Circuit Court, in a civil suit, only for the reasons and causes mentioned in § 6 of the act of 1793. Ibid., 316, 317. 22. It has been the uniform construc- tion of the law in the Circuit Courts, that a patent can be declrred void for no other defect in the specification than fraudulent concealment or addition. Ibid., 321. ■^ . .i PATENT, R. 521 COXHTKLCTION OF; WIIKM VOID. 23. The cxprcsHion "tlie patent is yoid^'' used by the courts in civil actions (it common law, 18 to bo understood not as incaninjj that it becomes void by a iudcnicnt in favor of the defendant, but only that it is voidable in chancery, and in a court of law, void as a legal found- ation for an action of damages. Ibid., 318, '24. If the specification is wholly am- biguous and uncertain, so loosely defin- ed and 80 inaccurately expressed that the court cannot, upon a fair interpreta- tion of the words, and without vague conjecture of intention, gather what it is the patent is void for such defect. Ames v. IToieard, I Sumn., 485. — Sto- ry, J.; Mass., 1833. 25. But if the court can clearly see, by a reasonable use of the me.ins of interpretation of the language used, taking the whole in connection, what is the nature and extent of the claim, then the plaintiff is entitled to the ben- efit of it, however imperfectly and inar- tificially he may have expressed himself. Ibid., 485. 26. If a patent is for an entire ma- chine, but the patentee is the inventor of only a part thereof, the patent is void, as a party cannot entitle himself to a patent for more than his own in- vention. Cross V. Iluntly, 13 Wend., 386, 387.— Nelson, J. ; N. Y., 1835. 27. In a patent for improvement in cider mills, the claim was for improve- ments in the box enclosing the cylinder, and the teeth or brads set in the cylin- der, but the specification did not show any improvement in such teeth or brads ; Held, that as the specification was de- fective in part, the patent was void, and not onlyjwo taiito, but in toto. Head V. Stevens, 19 Wend., 412. — Cowen, J.; N.Y., 1838. 28. A patent is void and inoperative if ihe specification claims niore than the jtatentee hsis invente«l. Stanh'ij v. Whipple, 2 McLean, 30.— McLkan,.!.; Ohio, iH3J). 20. A claim broader than tlie actual invention of the patentee, is, for that very reason, utterly void, and the pat- ent is a nullity. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 280.— Story, J.; Mass., 1840. 30. Prior to the act of 1830, if a pat- entee claimed more than he liad invent- ed, his patent was void. But under § 9 of the act of 1837, the patent is not absolutely void because the patentee claims more than he has invented, but is valid for so much as is truly and bona fide his own ; but in tlie specification ho must state in what his improvement consists. Peterson v. Wooden, 3 McLean, 248, 240.— McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1843. 31. If the invention is not so describ- ed as to be known, in the language of the statute, from every other thing, the patent is void. Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 Mc- Lean, 442. — McLean, J.; Ohio, 1844. 32. If an invention patented is the same in pruiciple with one before in uso, the patent is void. Ibid., 451. 33. If a foreign patentee, or his as- signees, do not put their invention on sale within eighteen months afler the same is obtained, as required by § 15 of the act of 1830, the patent will be void. Tat/iam v. Loring, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 208. — Story, J. ; Mass., 1845. 34. If the meaning of the patent can- not be satisfactorily ascertained upon the face of the specification, it is insuf ficient for uncertainty and ambiguity. Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatchf., 0.- Betts, J.; So. N. Y, 1845. 35. When the specification of a new composition of matter gives only the names of the substances to be mixed ••^■U. " !■»» m '**', ite'; %^\ ^U ;i:i jog PATENT, R. CDNHTRUCriON Of, WIIBK VOIU. '^'■ :l ti n togothor, without Htatlng any relntivc projiortioii, or wlioro tho proporlions are Htatod aiiiWi^iioiiMly or vnguuly, tho patent ih void, ah it would not enable nny one to conipound and use llie in- vention witliout experiment. Wood v. UnderhiU, 5 How., 46.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1840. 30. IJut where tho patentee gives a certain proportion as a general rule, Avhich on the faoe of the specification seems generally applicable, the patent will be valid, though Home small differ- ence in tho proportions may be occa- Hi'»nal'y required, according to the quality of tho materials made use of. Ibid., 5. 37. If a specification includes as well tho original discovery as the alleged improvement, and does not point out in what tho improvement consists, the patent is void. Street v. Silver, Bright- ley, 101. — ItoGERS, J. ; Pa., 1840. 38. If the specification is so uncer- tain, as to whether a particidar tiling is claimed as a part of a now combination, or as a new invention, as to be unintel- ligible, it is void, but, aemble, it may bo surrendered and amended. Ilovey v. Stevens, 1 Wood. & Min., 302. — Wood- bury, J.; Mass., 1840. 89. If a patent embraces and claims as a part of the improvements describ- ed in it, something which is not new, but was invented by another, ic is void, the claim being broader than the inven- tion. Ti/ler V. Deval, I Code Rep., 30. — McCalkb, J. ; La., 1848. 40. In order to render a patent valid, under § 9 of tlie act of 1837, which contains more than is the invention of the patentee, it must appear that the part really invented was "a material and substantial part of the thing pat- ented, and was distinguishable from the parts claimed without right." Ilotr/ikign V. Oliver, 5 Denio, 320.— McKissock J.; N. Y., 1848. 41. If an invention is not desrril)0(l with reasonable certainty and precision the patentee can claim nothiiiif miuIqt his patent. Parker v. Stilen, f» ^IcLeaii 54. — McLkan, J. ; Ohio, 1840. 42. If a patentee cliiims any thing as a m.iterial part of his combinatioi), as new and original with him, wliidi is proved to have been discovered prior to the emenation of his patent, it is fatal to it. Ibid., 65. 43. Where a foreign patent has been obtained for an invention previous to the issue of the home patent, the home patent must bo limited to fourteen years from the date of tho foreign one. If tho domestic patent purports to give an exclusive right for fourteen years from its date, it is void ; but the error is not fatal, it may be corrected. ASrnith v. JSly, 6 McLean, 78, 79, 80.— McLkax, J. ; Ohio, 1849. 44. Prior to the act of 1830, a patent was void if the claim extended beyond the invention. Under § 6 of tliat act, it was void if a substantial part Lad been patented or described in a printed publication. § 16 saved the patent from being void if the patentee believed him- self to be the first inventor. § 9 of the act of 1837 enlarged the right of the patentee, providing, notwithstanding § 15 of the act of 1830, that the patent should not be void, where he had acc J in good faith, if through mistake or inad- vertence he had claimed more than he had invented, and that he might main- tain suit on the part actually invent h1 by him, provided he filed within a rev sonable time a disclaimer of the parts net invented by him. Ibid., 84, 85. 45. If a patentee claims something *S^ tew- PATKNT, U. &20 ■rv2i^ COHBTKUOnOX Of, WIIKN VOID. whit'li H "•••^ '''** invention, liis |iiitt'iit cliiiiiis too imicli, !iii iissiiiU'il on lliiit j^ioninl, i-vcii lliou^li tlu- i>ait ilU'j^ally duiincl mjiy Ik- of (tlitjlit valiu) or im|iort!iii('i'. /*-er v. S,irs, MS.— (}hikk, J.; Vn., Is50. 4(t. Tho jivoitliinci; of pateiitH for (liiiiiiinu; too imicii is of friMjui'iit ocoiir- reiirc ainl iioctln no cxplauatioiw m to the ruiwons of it, when an apidicant is so iuiprovidt'iit or unjust to others, as to clniiu for hiniself more tiian he iu- vtiiti'd, and tlie eredit and prolit of wliit'li helonu; to others. Smith v. Dmen- ill'/, MS. — Woonituitv, J.; 3Iass., Ih.jO. 47. If the suggest it)ns or eonnuunica- tioiis of aaotlier go to make up a com- iilcte and perfect muehine, eujbodying all that is embraced in n patent 8ubse- (jiiuntly issued to tho party to whom tho KUggestions were made, the patent h invalid, because tho real discovery belongs to another. Pitts v. Hull, 2 lihiti'iif., 234.— Nklson, J. ; N. Y., 18j1. 48. If an inventor xumocessarily de- fers his application for a patent, and allows his invention to go into use, ex- cept for the purposes of perfecting liis iuvcntion and testing its utility, and hcyond wh.it he has reason to believe necessary for such purposes, his patent is void. Winans v. Schenec. rm,[:) Ilow., 112.— Tankv, Ch. .1.; Sup. Cl., iH-y-.]. 51. lie who tliseovors that a certain useful result will bo produced in any art, nL'ichine, manufacluri! or composi- tion of matter, liy the use of certain means, is entitled to a patent for sueli disco\i.r), provitled he sotH forth in his Hpeeilication the nu'.'ins he uses to pro- duce such useful result, so that any ono skilled in the art, Ac, can, by using the means sjiecilied, without any ant irt voiil. //>/(/. OA. Aiitl if nil inventor, iiHcr Win in- vonfion is piTfocti'd, ii<'<|Mi«'sc»' in its urn- in piililic, for a Ichm tiiiii than two years, without npplyini; lor a patent, iiiul the jury are satisfied from thisaequieseeiiee and other faets in thi> ease, tliat the in- ventor in tact ahandoned his invention, ooiieliidinj^ not to patent it, hut to ded- ieato it to t)ie piihlie, lio eaiinot reeall Hiu'li «ledieation, or defeat Hueli aliandoii- liient hy a HuhKeqiient application for n ] latent, and any sucli patent will bo void. Jf>i(l. ftO. And if an inventor does not uho reasonable dilif^eiico to perfect Iiis inven- tion nf\er tlio idea of it is conceived, and in thu mean time anotlier eoneeivus the itlea and perfects the invention, and jiractically applies it to use, the latter is the first and original inventor, and a patent granted to the former will be void. Ibid. 57. If the invention patented as in a joint patent, is the sole invention of one of the patentees, and not the joint in- vention of both, the p.atent is void. Ifnd. 58. Where a specification endeavors to include an idea, or a function of the liuinnn system, or a qu;ility of objects in n.aturc, instead of a particular instrii- mentiility, or concrete form of applying that idea, or function, or qu.ality in use, such patent is void for being too gen- eral, unless that defect be cured by dis- claimer in the manner of the statute. Morton^a AnoB8thetic Patent, 8 Opin,, 270. — CusiiiNO, Atty. Gen. ; 1850. 59. There is nothing to estop the gov- •emmcnt of 'he United States from show- ing a patent, which it has granted, to li.ave been a nullity ab initio, oAving to the noiv-existence of the condition pre- cedent of novelty of the invention. Kiiiij v. Unital Stiitia, 10 Mo. Taw Uep., m\ ; C't. ClainiK, 1H57. 00. An inventor Iuih no Ic^uj rji^ln, or immunities under a patent, uxcchi siK'h as are conferred by the sfatnlc With whatever Holemnity or «»ltsfrviiii((. of legal form it may have* iHHiicd, if wanting in any substantial statutory r(>. <|uisite, it is a nullity. Moffitt v. (Jnrr -Lkavht, J. J Ohio, 1 BOO. H, Tbanwkkr of. See Ahkkjnmknt, IJ., C PARTICULAU PATENTS. A pjilo- Paring Mnchino 53) AiiKLTH for lioriiiR MuskotB o,ji Hiiiik-Xoto printing 631 Unrk Mills 532 Hrnn Iliistcr 532 HriiHS Kc'ttloM 533 llrick Miu'hino 533 DurriiiK Madiino 533 Uiittons, DcsiffiiH for 534 CarH, Hiipportintj Bodies of 53.1 Ciirs for Coal 535 Carrinxos for Rail ways, 4c 535 Cars, Kight-Wheelod 535 Car Wlipols 636 Castors for Bedsteads 537 Cotton Gin, Ribs of. 537 Cotton Speeder 637 Cultivators 539 Dyeinir Parti-Colored Yarn 538 Dyeing and finishing Silk Goods 539 Electric Telegraph 539 Fire-Engincs 542 Glass Knobs 542 Grain-cleaning Machine 543 Grinding Tools 643 Gun Locks, 544 Harvesting Machines. 544 Hat Bodies, making 54(i Ice, cutting, 547 India-rubber. .,..517 ::!^ Ww.' PARTTCITLAU PATENTS. 581 AI'rI'KI'AliIKO MACIilNK. AUltKH To lUlUK OIXH. DANK-MOTa I'UIMTINU. Irrt^iitiir Fomm. liirnlnff Uw\ l'i|«' Mm-liiiMTjr I/Kimiotivon, Vuriiiblo Kxlinii»; of. l/«imH MiKlii'K, Kriclioii . Mill StoiicH, ri'^juliitiiiK, Ac MduMiiiKH, iii'>l»i"K <»''• XailH. MiiimriK'tiin' of. I'lilm U'ttf, pri'imririK I'lipor. MuniifiK'liiro of. I'UiiintC Min'liiiK'H I'lnlltfll!* I'lhldlo llall^ rolling UiiiU («T Kikilroml (!tirrliiKon ItiK'kinjf rimirH Sadilli'K Suw-MillK, Clrculnr Siiw-MillH, r(irtiilil(>, Circiiltir S'wiiij,' Miu'liiiifH .'i.iwiiiif Soi'd Siiiim-Knj;iin'>', Iinprovonrjnt in.. . Hli'!»m (ic'iitTiitorH Stovoii Simw-('uttor TiiildrH' Hhoari Tlireiul packing, &■*■' Viilvcs Water flloHots Wilier Wheels WhcolH, Ifnrizontnl Wood-Bendiug Muchine 60O 66'j Bn:i ; 554 I Rnn r>.'if( ri.'iii Dr>t! 657 MO m\ r>(-,i 5l!'i 602 602 r>ti:i G(s:i 608 608 r.09 6G!) 670 571 671 671 57.1 57:1 675 675 Api'le-Pauino Maciiinb. Pratt's Patent. Issued October 4th, 1853. 1. The patent was for " a now and useful improvement in machines for paring apples." Held, that the improvement patent- ed consisted in so attacliing the knife- block to the rod which moves it, as to allow it to rotate round the rod at right angles therewith, and thus the knife ac- coramodates itself to any irregularity in the surface of the vegetable to be pared. Sargent v. Larned^ 2 Curt., S49.— CuKTis, J. ; Mass., 1855. 2. Making tho rod movable in th'» HOfkct iiiNtcad of tli<' kiiill) on tlut rod, Held to bti a miTu cliangu in t'oriii or nu't'lianical Htructun>, and an in* tViiigrnii'Ml, as t^ i< knii'f-block li.-nl thi> Mime motion ; in tho one it was aroiuid tiio rod, in tliu other it waM with tho rod. /W(/., .'140. Auouu Foil UOUINO MubKlClH. Pkttihokk'b Patrnt. hmied Ftbruary I2th, 181 1. This patent was for "a new and use- ful improvement in boring muskets, pis- tols, and ritlos, by an auger eallctl tho spiral groove or twiste*! screw aiigt-r." The specification described the maimer of making tho auger, its form, and how used, and tho o.ffidavit stated that the patentee "believed himself to be tho first inventor of tho improved method of making augers or bits for boring muskets, pistols, and rifle-barrels." Ildd, that the patent extended only to the auger described in the specifica- tion, and not to the method of using it. Pettibone v. Derringer^ 4 Wash., 215, 218. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1818. Baxk-Notk Pbintixq. Kneass' Patent. Issued April 2S{;i, 1815. The patent was for " a new and use- ful improvement in printing on tho back or reverse side of bank-notes, as an ad- ditional security against counterfeiture." Held, that the improvement was for printing copper-plate on both sides of the note or bill — or copper-plate on one side and letter-press on tho other — or A^Q 1H< •au-l 1 '«4#';.'«i 632 PAUTICULAIt PATKNT8. BARK mUM. ir ^^... : 'VmW it 'Mh ^^^"sL:, - ^^^**wC' il li )i>tti(i'-|)r«>HH on Itoth h'nlt'H, uinl llitit tlii' |itttriit \vii<4 not lor tin (•H't't't, Init for tlio k'nil of prinlin;; Ity whirli lliiit t'trect is |ii'>if'iti n, was an inlViiiLfi'int'iil. Khvhhhw Schniflkill Jh'nk\ \ Wash., 12, 1 1.— -WAhiliNOTON, J. ; I 'a., IH'20. ItAltIC ^fll.l.H. MONTIIUMKIIV it IlillltlH' rATCNT. bautd Awjiui Vnh, 1810. 1. The pati'nt was lor "an Iniprovt- nu'nl in iIh' mill for lin'akin;^ ntnl '^riml- inj^ liark," ami tlu> claim was for com- l)ininj^ loi^ctlu'r tlu* slaliuiiary cylimli'rH and Ihu movable conical rin;^s, (ronccn- tricaily, there being teeth on tho sideH of both, ami snstainitig that combina- tion by tho cross bars, to which tho movable and Hlationary parts are sovor- allv attached. Ifihf, tli.'it the invention covered by the patent was the multiplication <(f the jjrindinj* ch:imbers, and apparatus or machinery in a mill of a given .si/o, and w hich may still bo driven l»y the samo jiower -'s heretofore. Wilfnir v. liecch- cr, 'J IJlatchf., lyu.— Nklson,J. ; N. Y., 1850. 2. And that there was evidence enough of utility, if the new machine would do double tho work of the old mill in a given tune. Ih'ul.^ 137. 3. Thougli the chaim was fjr the com- bination of one or more movable con- ical nuts with the stationary cylinders. Held, also, that tho description was suf- liciently particular to enable a mechanic to construct a mill with more chambers than three, tho number mentioned in the specification. Ibid.j 137, 138. 4. And (hat a mill with nIx ^'Hniliiv. chambers and twelve grinding oinfu,,, but prodiu'cd by the niidliplicalioii .,t stationary cylinders anil mi)\al,|,, ,,,, ical nutH, was un iufriii .;i'ment. //„,/ l;!i>, no. .'>. The particular shape «if tlio i ul niovulili' t<>ii i'j[i'nu'iit. ////./„ ;HM' nt* llic 'jr\\\,\ iirill ofllll' Int' , of tlio iinlchtnl tln'rclori', a tna I'Ht* |M»illtM trrcMllhl the piivriiitiliiiii:, D U(>lll))ilU\tiiill (1 mU witll lllll »t;i thl^ it wiiH uu ill 10, l\'2. UHTKn. dk's Patknt, I/27//I, iHt'J. i;i//t, 1855. fur " !vn iinpniw. i)r Ht'iiaraliiii,' tl"iir claiin WHS for lie llie iiitiTiiul stuiiiMi- revolving? ojliii'lii [cr, I'oiisli'ucli'il, :i'- 111}^ ill llie nirtiiiuv |sil forth. |(!iil('«> tliil not I'bim lit purls iis origiiiiil L'liiiiiis wore liiniti'l lions of tlie seviral lie entire m;\rlmu'. iktchf. — Nklson, J.; L is not valid on ac- Inty. /iit^- Jni is for a legal ro lit.iinablo, the i»l:iin- Ibo tlie original in Im to produce sucH MICK MAOniMI. MAM KKITLM •VIIH1N0 MACBINa ;t ri'MiiHt I'll! only of u iiuw cuiiibiiiiilioii HrUK on Til. KM, MA KINO. WtK)l»'H I'athst. Jttwii yovftnlmr \>th, lH3fl, "Till' |iali'nt wuM forii new iukI iiMcfiil itnprnvoinoiit in tliu art of inaniifactnr- ing liiiekH and tilt'K ;" anti I In- claim was I'lir u-^iiij; li'i" aniliracito ro;il, or cDal- ilnst uitli day for w\\ jMirpi>si«. 'I'lic L'ciieral itroportion nuMitioncil was threo- liiiutliH of a Itu-^licl of coul-diist to one i|i.)ii>*aiiil liriflv ; l»nt it was slatotl lliat ^oiue clay ini;;ht ro<|Mire more iliist, and HdMie lec'* — 1'»*' <''ay which nujiiirpd tin- m,.>t Iturniiifr wonld ro((nirii tlic gnatosl liroportion of coal vements in machinery for making such articles, l)y stretching a flat disk of metal on a [ roper form or forms, by the compres- ,on of .1 proper tool operating on the disk while rotating with and against the form. Jldd, that the patent did not grant the several parts, or any part of the machinery, by which the combination chiinu'd iN I'alh'd iiilc action, and madu to pttrforni ilN olliee ; Init the grant wiii the applicitioii ofa rotary form or monhl, <>i torniM and nionlds, incotnltination with proper toolN, moved or ilir»<'lid by torn- peteiit nieaiiN, for tho pnrpoNc of oper* Hting upon a blank, ho as to ntduce it gradually from the centre to the edge, at the same linii! forming it with straight sidfs l»y Hucce-*sive stages, into u coin- plel. kettle. Wntifhury Jtrtmn Co, v. AT )'. tt /trooA: Jit'(t«« Co. — Nklmox, .1.; \. v., I :)H. '2, The patent described, ut tlie side of the form, u movable itiide-reHt, run- ning piirallel with the side of the kittle, and carrviiig a small fixed tool, which is brought up against the revolving blank, to roll the disk into the jiroper shap«; //(/(/, that un invention subsetpieiitly patented to Mary (Gannon, wlii' h dis- pensed with such movai)le slide-re-t, ami provided ft»r holding the tool against the form by a workman holding firndy one arm ofa lever, was an infringement upon thu Haydtai patent. I/jid. Burring Macuixum. Wun-i'i.K's Pah NT. Usiieil October 28ol in sudi a numner that their outer convex siiles shall bo substantially concentric Avith the axis of the cylinder, for the purjiose of seizing and holding the fibres, .ind presenting a surfacic .against which the guard can act in removing b\us, «tc." ir'y^sv^i *•¥« U ijf ."Hi^^ tu PAUTIll I.AU I'ATKNTH. I *•< '>—• !!k ^"^ II MrmMi^ ptmiauB roa. OAi% MrrrmntM Bomn a», /A /'/, tlt:it tli«> invriitioii, HO Cur iin «iifh cltihii wiiM fi)iici>rru-i|, wai to ioriti kimI arriiii'j(i< tlii« tvi'tli witli |HiiiitH wliich \«uitliir ot'llic pointii, llriii and iioii-i'laMtio, to i«np|M)rl or ttoat till* 1)11114, MO tliikt tlio fxiiai'il coiilil r«'- iiiovo llifiii ; ami Miirh lit ill to \>v in mii'li HiicroHMioii aioiinil (lii>«'yliiii' that tlifir poititH nIiouIiI 1)0 proti'ftfd l»y tlii> lit>rl<« or NinnDtli HiirfiK'i* in llii< ifar of tlio nit'i'fdiiij^ liM'lli, xo as lo |ir(>vrnt liur.M tVoiii ht'iii;^ laki'ti Imld of liy tlio |>oinlH of tht' lt'4'tli, anti alio no un to pri'Vi'iit !('»> iimiiy llWr«'N ofilio wool ln<. injj i*iM/.«'d. H7»//7'/'' V. MiililliHtif Co., AIS.— SntAiiri:, .1.; Mas-*., IHdO. 2. Thu I'laini n-njanlM tlio smooth Hiir- fucv no n part of thu tfotli, or an cHMontial ini^ri'diciit in llic arntn^'t-iiicnt of tlio tei'lli, ami of tliu invciitiuii. IltiiL UuTTONrt, DkhKINH FOR. llOOTIl'a I'ATKNT. Jisued July 24r/< 18-17. Tho patt'tit \va« for "a new and orna- ttu>ntal lU'^ii^ii for ti;j;nr«'d silk htiltons," and tlif claim was for tho radially fonnccl ornamontH on the faco of tho nionld of tho button, oondjinod with tho mode of winding tho covoring of the Haino, substantially as sot forth, ami tho specification described tho conlijijur- ation of tho mould, and tho winding it with various colored threads, but did not describe tho process of winding. JfiM, that tho patent did not cover the process, but was for tho arrange- ment of tho different colored threads in the process, so as to produce the radi- ully formed ornaments on the face of the button. Booth v. Garclhj, 1 Blatchf., :i48, 2 49.— Nelsox, J. ; N. Y., 1847. Cakh, Kirt'i'oirriir'i nouiiw tit, Imi.at'ii Patcht. i:jt.i,.i,,t S' !•!, ,1,1m I jiw, 1S5I. The pali-iit wan for "a lu-w aii.l ii„ fill iinpi'iivoniont in tho inoih> or iimiti. of Miipporting tho bodioN of railn,,,; nil and oarria;4i's, and ooniici'tin^tli,!,. with tho truck," and tin- ohjoct ofil,, invent ion of tint patent wan to t'lirni'l, a Niipport for the carriage body, wliili tho oars wore in motion, wliicli uiinIi.i||, IniiL^itmlinal and latoral, and aUo ^rJviM Vortical Hiipport ; and the moans u>i<| wore two oylimlrioal plates, male atij fonialo, one above and within tlu> otlicr; tho upper oii«> slightly convex on it* lower siirfaeo, so that it roHted oiiljiih the centre of tho bod-pi.ilo, which coiiIJ thus turn and vibrato under tho ^i plate — oiieeonHnod to tho carriage and the other to the truck — ami one intti. ing within tho other a sutlliient (li|it|i to afford the «Iesircd Mipiiort, without tho aid of any other instniiiu'ntaiity, such as tho ordinary king-bolt. J/cld, that tho patent sociUH'd llic iiso and application of the two oyrnnKi. plates, male and foinalo, one within the other, and acting in combination, wlan- by tho truck and carriage are coiiiliim 1 to give support to all kinds of railioml carriages. Imlay v. Nor. Ai,. Wmav'i PAriirr. /m««< Jun* 30M, INC Thn piitoiit WAN for " lui iiiiiirovvituMit iiM'ttri* for tlio traii.s|>(irliitioii of foul." Tlit< iiivt'tilioii ilfM4'rilit'il ami «'tainu>il W114 tho iiiakiii); the hmly of iht* t-ar in tho fiirtn of thu friiHiimi of ti «'oiit>, whficliy tho foroi' of tho woij^ht of thu IdiuI prt'SMcN «'<|iially in all ilirofiinnM, iiMil iliK'H not tonil to «'han)^u tho form tlnToof, HO that ovory part roMintH Its ('([iial proportion, l»y which tho hnvor iinrt iH HO roilncoment. Winans v. JJenmeuU^ 15 I low., ;J44. — Ci'KTiH, J.; Sup. Ct., 1H6J. Cakbiagks von Uailwavs. WiNANS' PaTKKT. luued July 30tA, 1831. The patent was for " n now and usc- .'ul iinprovoment of railway and other wheeled carriages," and tho claim was for extending the axles each way out- side of a pair of wheels far enough to form external gudgeons to receive the bearing hex of tho body load. It ap poarod, however, that tho invention lia. WiNAiia' rATrxT. /««M«ii fVtoW tf(, 1834. 1. Tho jtatent wan for "anew and useful improvement in tho construction of carriages intended to travel on rail- roads," an j>l;ni'il as ivmoti'lv Iroiu oai'h otlu-r as fan t'oiiv»'nu'Mlly '»»> ilonf, I'or llu« Niip- jioit of tlio caniai'i', aiul llu» spafos l>r- t\V»'«M> tlll< tWV» a\I»'H to ll«> MO ^loahT than is ni-ivssary to provt'iit (li«> llaii;i's ot' till' wheels t'(>niiiii; in eonlatt with •'Mill other. I>ul the iinprov emeiil ih)es not consist in plaeinix tht> nxh-s \A' the t wo tnieks at anv preeisi- tlislanee aparl , or at an_\ prei-ise liist.uiee fVom each enii of the liotly. And tlie speeiliealion is sntVieiiMitly delinile without speeifyini; (lie I'vaet tlistanee, in feet and inehes, from llie i-.uls tif the ear lioily at whieh it wouM l>i> ln'st to arranife tiie trucks, or theexait (listanei> hi't w ei'n the axles. 7?'/(/., •-'!».■), 'Jltr. ;>. Winan>* patent is lor tin* manner (>f ai ran^ini;- ami eonnectii'.ij the eii;hl wheels, which eonslitiile the two bear- ing earria^es, with a railroad eaniaije, as shall ena'.iK' a ear w ith a '.»nij; body to pass curves with greater facility and **at'ety and less friction, and at the same time cause the Itody of the ear to pnr etio a n\ore sniooth, even, direct, and safe course over the eiirvaturi's and ir- regularities of the road. Winmis v. .Y. r.«o/;. A'. li. (\>., ji iiow., 10-'.— CJkikk, J.; Sup. Ct., I8r)8. 4. Carriages with eight wheels, ar- rangoil and ei>iinected substantially in the same manner, and upini the same inochanical princi])les, witli those de- scribed in Winans' patent, liaving been kr\own before his invention; JIdJ, that he was not entitled to re- co>er. Ibid., 103. ''^'- CaU WlllCKl.ri. Wcii.k'h I'atknp. Imttil Aliuxh nut, ih:\». 1. The patent was for "ii mw ;iii,l useful impro\enu-nt in the mode ol'inak. ing cast-iron wheels to be used uii mil. roatis, and applieabl«< lo«)tluM," and the «-laini wan for "tho nnunier nt' constructing railroati car wheels wiili double convex plates, «>ne convex cut ward and tlio other inward, ami un midivid«'d hub, the whole cast in (iiit> piece." //(/(/, that ihepatt'iil was nol for i he nn)de or method of const riicliii',' [\w wheel, as distinct from tin' instriiiiuiit itsi'lf; but that it was llu' lliiiio, ili,. instrument or whei«l al\er it was iiia,lo, which they claimed to have discovcri'd. Mitntfw Jiujifcr, I IJlalclif., ;»7H.— N'm,- .soN, .1.; N. v., IS is. •J. //(/((', also, that I lu' claim was not I'or any of the parts of the wheel taken separately, but for the i-ntirc wlucl as t'onstrueti'd — a east iron-wheel, with double plates, a stditl hub, and a cliillnl rin\, all cast in ono piece. I hlil., ;I7S, :t7!». .'1. .//(7(/, also, tluvt the peculiar form of tlu> double plates being nearly |i.ii:il- lei — one convex inward, and llio oilier convex outward— so that in coiise- (jui'nce of 8uch curvature they would contract without danger of liactiiie, was not essential, any lurther than as respects a form that would :illow for the contraction of the plates in cooling, the allowance being niaile for the pur- pose of procuring a chilled rim. /i/i/., 3V9. 4. The correctness of the ruling of \¥- ih;ih. " II lii'W :iM,l • inoili' i>riil;ik- 10 used nil r:iil. luT plirimscs," llu niiuiiH'r ot" r wlu'ols willi [W oonvfx (Mil iward, ami im oU' ^•il^^l ill dill' was iit>l tor the mslriictiiii; llic tlio iiisli'iiiiuiii I llu« tliiiii;', tlio iT il was iii;i,lo, lavt' discovcri'il. I'lif., :!7s. -Nm.- claim was iml ic wluH'l tllkt'Il 'iiliri' wlii't'l as Oll-Wlli'l'l, wilii I, ami a cliilli'il //'- led riui. md., V\\i'VWV\.\U r.VI'KNTS. ( .tHI'KUM, CUTIHIN IIIN. 887 conuN «ri;i;iii u )r the ruling of ill,' (oiiil ill lliif* '■•'i^i' <|iit'Mtiniu'i| in 1 Jl.iiii/ \- '**'<"-«'•, MS. Si'UAia K, .1.; CaSI'KKS roK r>i:i>STK,MiN. UlXKIl's I'AIINI'. /WHIU/ JUHK Wlh, IHIIM. Tilt' patt'iil was fur "an iin|irttv('d caster l"i>r liedsti'mls." //(A/, llmt ll>»' iiiM'iilion was (lie old ir/iitl i the pintle !iL;;aiiiM( la(eral iiiodoii. Hhkr V. .S/'(/ry, '-• N. V. I.e^f. Oiw., •.':):i, iNiiKiisoii,, .1. ; ('(., !Hi;i. It dispenses with \\u' ittafc iiii'.l nrrrirn {>{' [\\v />li(tc cif.s'^v, the iron J'l'iniif of the" Firiich fdsfi r, the c/nfi/KH iiiitl hUi- ji/(N of \\w niifr fiis/ii\ the irom/ /'niinr (tiid hniri.t of the iiii'ittiil at.sUr, and ilit'.s7/((rM of the socket citHtcr ; and that the patent, wa.s a valid patent. Ihid. CoiTOx r»iv, Tims OK. CaIIVKU'H PATKN'r. hmcdJuw. Vm, 18:i8. ii'mwei/ AW. KWi, 1839. 1. This patent was for "a new and ibcfiil iinprovennMit in the ribs of the iottdii ^in," and the patentee elaimetl as his invontioii, the inereasiiig tin* doplli 01' space between the upper or outer, and the lower or inner surfaces of the rib, so that it should be efjual to the length of lh*< llbre of (he eolloii to li«> ginned; and iiIno, as part of (he Name improveim-iit, slopiiiL;; np (he jnw-t er or inner HiirCaee of (he rib no as to meet the upper or outer Niirfaee, leavin)^ no liieak or Nlioulder between the two surfaces. /A/r/, That I lie patent was for onn eii' tire tiling, that is, ibran improved rib, oi a speeitied improvement upon the cot nion rib, and not for two distinct ai<. imlependeiit improvements the tliiek- ness or depdiof (he rib, and (he sloping lip of (he surfaces thereof, ('iirtur v, lii'iiiiiti'ii' Miinitf. Cii., 'i Story, 'lift, I 111. Sioitv,.!. ; Mass., 1h|;i. '2. Iliiif^ also, that the same (hin^ was patented in both the orif^inal and re- newed pa(eii(s. ////(/., |;IH, I i:.. :i. TIk^ true eonslriiclion of (his pat- ent is, that it elatnis not only the in- creasing the depth or space between the upp(ul. 3. The combination claimed consists of the construction and arrangement of the movable frames, reels, and yarns, and their conjoint operation in dyeing, a)id without hicluding the measuring scale. Ibid. 4. Tiie thing invented is : the hori- zontal frame carrying the reeled yarns combhied with the dyeing vat by ma- chinery lapted to let down and draw up this frame, and incasure the extent of tlu' immersion, or the extent of the line of dyeing upon the yarn. Smith V. Ely, ns, MS. — Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1859. 5. In er words, the thing discov- ered is the combination of the horizon- tal frame, carrying the reeled yarns with the dyeing vat by machinery — which must always be kept in view as very important — which lets down the frame carrying the yarn, and draws it up, and at the same time measures the line of yarn to be dyed. Ibid. 6. It is not a patent for the discovery of the idea of coloring parti-colored yarns by immersion in the dye, but for an arrangement or combination of ma- chinery, as a means to bo used in dye- ing parti-colored yarns by immersion in the dye. Ibid. Dykino and Finishing Silk Goods. Stkaunes k Barrett's Patent. Issued May 12tt, 1818. Tliis patent was for "a new and useful improvement, being a mode for dyeing and finishing all kinds of silk woven goods," and the specification de- scribed two machines, one a reel, on which spirally to wind and secure the silk, and put it into the dye ; the other a frame for the purpose of extending and finishing the silk after it is dyed. Held, that the patent was for dyeing and finishing such goods by means of the reel and frame in combination, and not for each of the machines severally, as well as in combination. Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mas., 448, 477. — Stoey, J. ; Mass., 1818. Electbic Telegraph. Bain's Patent. Issued April 11th, 1849. The invention of Bain, for which ap- plication for a patent was made April 18 th, 1848, and being for his chemical telegraph, so called, being the applica- tion of chemically prepared paper to receive and record signs by means of the pulsations of an electric current transmitted from a distance, and opera- ting directly and without the interven- tion of any secondary current, or me- h 540 T'AUTICrr.All PATKNTS. KLKOIRIO TKI.KOKAI'H. ?**A <;hani('nl oontrivnnoo, thronp;h a motal iimrk'mjjf s^lylo, in o(»i)tuct with Hiich ]»n'|):ir(>(l |i:i|u'r, iH TiottlicNiunu invention as that <>l" Morse, for which application for a ))atcnt was inatlo January '20th, 1H4H, and in wiiicii h(( claimed tho use of a sin<,do circuit of conductorM for murkinjjj sijxns by means of the decoin- posiuLj clVccts of electricity on prejtared paper, and l»y means of tlie machinery dcscriht'd for sudi purpose. Kacli was entitled to a patent for tho particular condtination he iiad invented. Jiain v. 3f()rsi\ IMS. (App. Cas.) — Cuancii, Cli. J.; IXC, 1849. Mouse's Patents. " Maonetio."— /wf/ft/ ./■«)H> 20^;?, 1840. Jieissued Janunnj 2bth, 1 81(i. L'eissued Junn V.Wi, 1848. '^Ijocal ''::rc>tit."—f.ssw>/ April lUli, 1846. lieinsiit'd Jitiii: i'.Wi, 1848. "CiiKMiCAr,."— /.s>v(C(i J/(f)/ 1st, 1849. Htiusd fnKfrumcnt. Columbian Inslrunient. 1. The patent of Morse, of June 20th, 1840, for improvements in the electro- magnetic telegraph, sliotdd be limited to the term of fourteen years from the date of his French patent, August 18th, 183S, and not being so limited, but i)ur- porting to give an exclusive right for fourteen years from its date, is void. f>)tu'th v. J'Jlij, 5 McLean, Y9, 82.~Mc- Lkan, J.; Ohio, 1849. 2. But such error is not fatal to the right of tho patentee, and may bo cor- rected at the Patent Office. Ibid, 80. 3. The motive power of the galvanic current, however developed to produce a given result, can be no more patented thiin the motive jjower of steam to pro- pel boats, however applied. Ibid., 91. 4. The essence of IVforse's method, beyond what before had exislcd, or been practised, was to nuike electro- mjignetism, when excited, not merely exhibit sonio evanescent sign at the other end, but a sign which llu' niii. cliinc! is made to trace, and thus record them pi'rmanently. Smith v. Jhtmniitg^ MS. — Wooitniiuv, J. ; Mass., iH.'io. 5. The chief ])riiu;iple or ch.'iractor- istic of INIorse's telegraphic^ invent inn, is that by its type-rule, or knob-sprjiiir .,t the starting plju-e, it is able to iiiako dots and lines by breaking the circuit for a shorter or longer time, and tlien being felt along the wires to the otJur end, trace there on j)aper, passing undur or over the needle or pin at the end of the lever 'ike dots and lines, which re- m;iin on -HM-manently written, to ho afterward, by the stenographic ;il|)li;i- bet, translated into Roman letters and words. Ibid. 6. IJcforo lus invention, there wore al- ready known tho wires and circ-uit, the galvanic battery, the use of posts, and tho ground for a part of the circuit, tlio bre.'iking of the circuit by various de- vices, the making of signals and marks, the paj)er and clock-work, and the de- flected noodle, if not the lever. Ihith 1. The lever of Morse's instrument seems to be but the old needle, dei)re.ss. ed at one end by the magnet, and of course elevated at the other, and a pin or pen inserted in it to make dots or strokes on the paper. Ibid. 8. The novelties in Morse's patents are 1st, local circuits; 2d, recording or writing at a distance by electro-magnet- ism, and 3d, doing this by a regular stenographic alphabet on rolling paper. Ibid. 9. House's telegraphic machine is more complicated than Morse's, moves much faster, at tho rate of GO to 70 tete PARTICULAR PATKNTS. A41 KI.KCI'KIU TKI.KOKAI'118. |,r,,;,l!<(- 10. It mukt'S no triicing lit either end of llie circuit, Imt acts at I»oth emls hy iiiciiiis of signals, and (races notliing. Morse's is a tracing or writing telegra|ih, House's a signal and printing telegraph. Ibid. 11. IIoiiHO uses no local circuits, makes no tracing, hut records hy print- ing and hy niejuis of two additional powers in axial magnetism and air, and uses no stenograjdiic alphabet. Ihhi. 12. The use of electro-magnet ism geiierallv for i'onnnuni<'ating inf elligence at a ilistan(!e and there re(;ording it, is not new to either Morse or House. Ihid. 1.3. l»y the assertion and cl.aiin fotnid in Morse's patent of lHt8, of " the cs- scwc of his invention being the tise of tlic motive power of the electric or gal- vanic current, however developed., I'or marking and printing intelligible char- acters at any distance," lie must be con- sidered as claiming it in the form of his api)lication — according to his machinery — ratiicr than as intending to cover the application itself of electro-magnetism to telegraphic purposes, in every possi- ble form. Otherwise, his renewed pat- ent of 1848, must be regarded as void, for claiming too much, and for wishing to protect a mere principle or effect, " however developed," and without ref- erence to any method, described by him, and to cover a principle, also before known. Ihid. 14. The original patent of Morse — commonly known as his Magnetic pat- ent, of June 20th, 1840; and its re- issue of January 25th, 1840, and its second reissue of June l.'Jth, IHIH, in all their «-haiiges, contain no tlagrant diversity of claim. They all cl:iini tlie sam(! thing essentially; and in them all, he claims, and n-iu'ws his claim of prop- erty in (he same invt'ntit»n — he declares the existence of a new art, and asserts his right in it as its inventor and owimr ; and his title was vested as i)!itenle(' of the art. Fir.uch v. Jtogers, MS. — Kanio, J.; I'a., 1851. 15. Morse's Local Circuit patent, granted A|»ril 1 Ith, l8-!0, and reissued J mil! liitli, JHts, are also both for the same invention. Ibid. 10. The Hulycot or leading ])rincipl(! of his Chemical patent of May 1st, 1840, is also clearly within his original pati'iit, .and was approjiriated and Hecure?"se was the first and original inventor of tlu! electro-magnetic tele- gra]»li. (y Jtidly v. Mor-te, 15 How., 100, 125.— Tank v,Ch. J.; Guikk, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 18. There is nothing in the reissued p.atents of 1840 and 1848 that ni.-iy not be regarded as a more careful description than the patent of 1840. Ibid., 112. 19. His p.atcnj; is not void, because it does n(jt on its face bear the same date with his French ])atent, previously ob- tained for the same invention, but its monopoly is limited to the term of four- teen years from the date of the foreign patent. Ibid., 112. 20. Morse's eighth claim in his re- issued patent of 1848, which is as fol- lows : "I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery or parts of machinery in the foregoing specifica- tions and claims ; the essence of my in- vention being the use of the motive power of the electric or galvanic cur- "HJ i. k "Vofg 'WWwfiM/Ww|' *^'''i^: ::^|!i: ■•'yi^,' ' ■ ■ K.M ■■-^ Wirtj.,; ■' ,-' 'wf i»i>f. "■■ \i. . -■■ -^ •. -' -^Vl:!- . -^'Uag|ife.i ■ ■ -v ly ^''«^|l ^'» s;i,. i J «4d rATlTlCrLAIl TATKNTS. riliK-KNCilNIOil. OLAW KINMft ^*»>» ■ I a rent, whirh I call t'loctn)-inn<;netlsiii liowt'Vcr Io chanicterH, MigiiH, t>r l(it- tiTN, 'it niiy (liHtaii(H>s, Ix'iiifj; n now ii|> plication of'tliat power of which I claitu t(» l>t' the fiTHt iiivi'iitor or dist'overor," is illegal nn«l voi*l, aH elaitniiig the ex- cluifioe right to the use or effetit of Hiich l»owor for such jmrpoHe, without respect to the procesH or machinery by which accomplished — but he is entitled to a patent only for the particular mi^thod or process discovered by liini. Ibul.^ 112, 120. 21. Tlio delay of Morse to enter a disclaimer for such claim, it having re- ceived the sanction of the head of the Patent Office, and been siistainetl by a Circuit Court, until such claiin was passed upon by the Supreme Court, was not unreasonable, and the omission does not render liis patent void. Ibid., 122. 22. Morse's patent of 1840, reissued in 1848, for the local circuits, is for an invention not embraced in his former patents, and was properly issued. Ibid., 123. 23. The Columbian telegraph, so-call- ed, uses substantially the same means embraced in Morse's patent, and is an infringement upon it. Ibid., 123, 124. 24. As to the construction of agree- ments respecting the electric telegraph, see Agbkemknts, B., 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, ■iR, 49, 50. Fibe-Enginks. Ransoh k Wenuan's Patrnt. Issued February 13th, 1841. 1. The patent was for "an improve- ment in fire-engines," and described as cotuiccting the receivitig tubes or piuiiiis of the engine, liy means »>f hose, (o liv. tlranls, in which the water was iiikIct pressure, and claimed "the empluyiii,.|,t of a coluiim of falling water, or tliv Itiiilciicy of the hydrostatic prcssurt upon water at rest, to act in tin- wmk ing of lire-engines, by combining u hoso or tube, con-t'ii{j;iiu! with a , formini; a imhi- iif^ino ami a liy- )m wliicli waliT ostsitu' itri'ssure , into \\w \ni\\\\)% ed HO as lo colli- , hydraulic pros- applied to the substantially as layor, <£'"., of L, J.; N. Y., e patent was not not grant to the )rivilege of using lire in all forms could bo applied e purposes of the hiui, but that the e means and do- tentec proposed available for the .ho specification. OBS. « on's Patent. 2d, 1826. laQOW and useful rAUTUlI..\U TATKNTS. 543 OnAIN-OLKAKINQ MACMINKH. UIIIKMNO TOdlX iiiii»rov(inent in tlio inodt* of nini*ufac- turinj; >;Ii»ss knobs," by inachinery, at (,ii(> operation, in nuch a manner as, ^vilhoiit any blowin;,', to produce' n Hn- i*thcd knob, with a hojo perforated tliroiittli '♦» ""'l •* "f""!^ or enlargement. /fid, that the description in (he spee- itication was Hufli(;ient in law, anni(/ii(; 1 Ulatchf, 507.— Nklhon, J.; N. Y., 1850. IIauvksting Maciunks. McCouMicK'fl Patents. IssHcd June 2lsl, 1834. Isnued January 'AXst, 1815. Inautd October iWd, 1847. Ikissued May 2Wi, 1853. 1. The chiini of McConnick, in his pat- ent of October 23t1, 1847, for improve- ment in reaping machines, was as fol- lows : " The arrangement of the seat of the raker over tho end of the finger pieces, and just back of tlie driving wheel as described, in combination with and placed at the end of the reel, where- by the raker can sit with his back tow- ard the team, and thus have free access to tho cut grain laid on the platform and back of the reel, and rake it from thence on to tho ground by a natural sweep of his body, and lay it in a range at right angles with his swarth as described, thereby avoiding uncvenness and scat- tering in the discharge of the wheat, as well an accomplishing tliu tiamo with ^ groat saving of labor." //t'A/, that it was tho Heat as thus do. Hcril)ed, by whic-li (he raker may ^/(/., 'jr.O, '2.'3. 3. The improvement w.-is not Hiiii]ily putting a seat or. he niaehino for tlio raker, but was the arrangement ami eoiiibination of the parts of the iiiacliiiic so that the paleiitei; was enabled to oli- tain room on the machine for the raktr, and that he might have the free usu of his body and limbs in r.-iking dft' the grain, avoiding the labor and liiti^ruu and inconvenience of walking. The seat or position of tho raker on the ma- chine Avas the object had in view, aiii] was the result of his new arraiigeiiKiit and combination of tho dillereiit i»aits of the machine. McCormick v. Soj- moitr, MS. — Nklsox, J. ; N. Y., Oct,, 1851. 4. Tho second claim in McCoiniick's patent, which is as follows: "I chiim the reversed angle of tho teeth of the blade, in manner described," is not sim- ply for tho reversed angles of the sickle teeth of the blade, but for reversing tlie angles of the teeth in the manner pre- viously described in his patent — it is a claim for the angles formed by the pe- culiar shape of the fingers, in counec- rAirnciLAU tatknts. ft4S i 8amo witli a fill as thus (If. mf may nit or rake t\n\ wheat I coiivcMitiicc, 'urinific v. Snj. L. — NKI.hON,J.; t for the Hent (m iihir iikhU' iiii'l Iml tor till! ar. itioii deHcrihci], ' a Heat or imim. aiiicil, liy which Tc he is jilaciii, J do his work. was not !^- I KevefHi'd, jHiHt 1 I . I 6. Mi'Corniiok's p.itent of Jiin(« 2 1st, 18.34, havinj? expired, whatever of lii- vfiitioii is eoiitaineil in it behmixs to the iiiihlie, anil mny 'h' used by any one. }l'Ci)nnii'k V. Miiiiii!/, Mi-Iieiui, 5 j:», M4.— M.Lkax, J.; III., 18.W. 0. Ill McCorniiek's juitent of lRt7, reissued in 1H.5;J, he elaiined "the com- liiiialion of the bow L mid dividiiif? iron M, fi»r seimratiiif; the wheat to bo cut from that to be left standing." Thiselaini liiiiii,' lor a eonibination, the use of a wooden divider, us used and patented liv Manny, is no infringement. //»/:irt ol'llio coiiiliiiiiilioii ; iiori'tiii it tliiill«'ii^«t other iiii|ii°oNt'inriilH >>ii ||||> h.xum' iiia- cliiiit', (lilVi'i'riit ill Itiriu <>r roinliiiiiiiinii, (\H iiiriiiim'iiit'liN, iMruiiM*' (lu'v |)crriirtn tlic Hiiiiif riiiii*ti\v will) II tliviiliii;^ iron n tlu> inviniioii nf McCorniick. / fn'if , •loo, tn;. I Dam 101., . I. ; tlissniiin^;. | 1(5. Tin' innnntT t>t' Mnp|»or(inL; the reel, nM uhimI in Manny'H n)Mfliint>, ih not tilt' wnnt' (IS tilt' invention of McCnr mick, :niil it li;nl lu'i'ii in nut' lit'ltut' Mc- C'orniifk's patent. /f>n/., ' ,»()«. 17. Ah to (lit- rakt'i-'M h. ,.i, MfCor- inick's claim was for the <'oniliiMatii>ii of tilt' nt'l with a Heat, arran^nl and lo.-at- t'd accordinj^ to liis dfseriplion. Man- ny's arranyenu'iit is Hnlislantially tlitler- i>nt, Itotli in torni iind ftmiliiiiiition, nnti is no inlVinjri'int'nt upon MfC'orniit'k's ])att'nt. //>i(f.. tOS. ITt'HBEY'R PaTKNT. Issued Ainjuft tlh, 1847 hMsaucii Aj'r,'! Ut/i, Isr.T, in three. The patent was for certain "new and useful iniprovenu'Uts in reapini:; ma- chines," ami I lie claim was fur the com- hliiation of vihratin;^ scalloped entter, the iiideiilations of wliost; cdjjo at-t as a series of movhtg shear Matles, with plotted ijjnard finsxers, the sides of which act as a correspontlint; series of Jixcd shear Mados; the parts of huoIi fini^ers forming the slot being conneetoil at the front ends only, leaving the rear of the slot opcu and free for the escape of ma- terial that would otliorwiHo vUtff ||,„ cutler. /filif, lluil IiIn invention wan not i guard tiiipr with a ^'>>^ open helow flic ciiltcr, m, | that it wu- iw>t rt>(|iiir«r that the r utter (.limiM lie nickh'-ed ; ' I ; any coinliinalldu ,,(' the open sluitcd finger with xiliratiin^ Nc.illoped cnller-t is enil>raecd in |||,. patent. //iiitHfi/ V. J/.'( 'in'iiiifk\ MS.— Mt liicAN, .1. ; Ohio, Ih.mi. Hat n«)i)nw, WlCMJt' r.\TBNT. h»Hnl April 2r,tl,, |H|(J. Ii'i'i-ivieit SrpUmbrr ;i(«A, ISfirt. Utiitaued O'tohfr lih, \HM). 1. In an aetion for an infrini,'tiiU'nt upon Well's patent for making Imt ImmI- icH, the del. iidants in their niacliino di\il or chainiiin' into whieh the fibres of the fur were liirowii, and tist'd .1 perfor.aled eon(> of wire gauze, ttf larger opening than Wells and put u liner one tif grass cloth kvci it, and used a iiicfallie picker instead d the hair brush to throw the fibres (iftlii' fur into the ehanibt i , and also, instead of immersing the b.'it formed on tlic cone, into warm water, to lianli nit, so that it eouhl bo removeil, disclmrjji'il jet.s of steam upon the bat diiriiig the process of ftirmation. Jlildy on ail application for an iii- junction, that tln^ machine of tli. de- fendants, and their jiroce.ss of making the hat body, was substantially like thai of the complainants, the as.signees ot •wiHo clou tilt' 111 U !IM not »'(1M- iVilll II Kit a . |l)'n .^ mmnl fiiiiriT llm i'IiIUt, iu.>I tli;U t)ii>Hritl|ii|i itMilur ill pill, III ftnlio kIiimiIiI III ho fllttlT dlliMlM oomlfiiiiillim lit' r willi viltiiirni},' iiiluiici'il ill till" (/./rmi.it, MS.- -.0. )llCl4. 1KST, \th, \MC,. r ;iiW/i, IH.'itl. 7i/i, iHriO. :iii iiilViii;:rliUMit ni.ikiiiL; liiit ImmI- II tlii-ir iii;irliiiK' >r fhuinlii'i" iiilit fur wore llii'invii, 'I I rniic of win' |nii\,L; tlwiii Wi'Hn r irraHH cloth over jiirktT iii'-1i':i(l(if the til Ill's I if till' [iiiil :iNo, iiisti'ail i'ormcil oil tilt' |r, to liiinli'U it, m lovi'il, fliscliarjri'il |ie but iliirint,' the ation for an iii- ichiiii' •>f till tit- Irocess of making stanlinlly like tli.il I tho assignees ol pAinurrAU tatknts. toiiOtrriMU. iKiiu utuuKit Nt WrIN, i»'"l •'"'•^ ''''7 •■'''■•' •''••'>l«'<' •'• lUI illjlllM'li'"'- ''^- ./../»/« V. /Vf«/M«, ;^|j4_\kimi»n, .1.; N. Y., l^.'iH. >i. Till' itiiliii'f of tluM invciitiiiii iHllu< foriii:>li<»> <*' ''''^ linilioH liy llirowini; tlu' li'iriH of W' I or fur, in |»i<»|mt pr.. iiorli'iM-*, on .1 |Hrtor:il <»' otlur conlrivHiK'i-, to liiilil tilt' lilT''^ <»ii the ci'iic l»y (III' iMir- riiilt of iiir niHliiiif^ llironj^li |lit> |icrfo nilnl (Mints mill l<> liunli'ii Niittliiinlt) the Imt t»f wnni or fiir. IVt-viniis to ili,> .lisiim-ry luul invention of WrIN, 11(1 ili'vift'S will' known to iirroni|ili 'li •iiiili «l»'>»irt'il oliji'i't in ii h.-itisluciory H!i\, Uurr V. Cinr/wrthu'iiilc, i lMnti'lif. — JMiKimoi.i., .1. ; <'t,, IHfiH. :i. Till' ili'vi(*(li iliiHi'il, a suitaMi' fri'iliii)^ ap- |iiiratiiH t'l Inin^ llu' Inr to tlio laWlo iiiiil |tii'srnl it to rotary Im-iihIu's, or otliiT Kiiitaltlt' lit'vii'o for tli^intc^nitinji ;iiiil lasiin;^ tlu' fur int<> ii rnrrcnt of air iiiiliH'i'il l>y the hruNlifs or otlici- wisi', II trunk or oilier tieviee between tho linislics and roperly re!,'ii!at id quantities, at thr w ' of iIk; operatur. liy tho machines before known uo sheet of fur was dirccteil by t ic or- (;ar«iy;ali >n of the nmchiiui on to the ppr* lormlcd eone, Imt the I'nr wmh (b>|><(«ilcd on the exiiailtleil cone by tlie p<.,«iM' of >j{ra>ily, or the |l the Wells' inarirnie^ from all ofhi/.e, I V means of an apparatus worked by atiN power other than I'liiiian. Tlie invention if the art de cribed, as well as \\\v particular mctliod of the applii • tioii of the principle, were both claimed. //(/(/, that so far as the patenleo claimed the art of cuttiii.t^ ice by means of any power othor than human, it was a cl.'iim for an art or principle in the ah< struct, and void; but so far as it elriini- ed lh(! machines described, it miiilit l»o f^ood, if a disclairuer was properly en- tered under ^J5 7 and 9 of tho a(!t of ls;i7. U>wA.(>i Jar ^.„ •4t iVMmci'l.AK rATKNTS. nmU' i^. k Ww^g liji «ftii ItuMit ill tlio rt|i|)lit'iitioii of rrtoittrlioilo to clotllK. ill'." //i/(/, tlitii lltf |>ali>nt(M<>rib«>('itii'iilli>ii, .iikI the tiitu'liiiicry ilfNt'i-ilioil hn thitl (o lie iikimI ill (MiTvini^ oil till' |>ro('<"<>«. Jhn/ \,f iiiun /mliiiriiliir f'»., ;i Itliitt'lif, 400.— Hall, J.; N. V., l^*ao. OdODYKAIi'N PATRNTn. ftnWlK.I) Cooits PvTKM', i-i-wil Miinh 0, 1814. Bon Itl'llllKIl I'ATHNT, iiKH"! Jiint 16, IHi. JitinMH'il Ihnmltrr 'iU, IttlO. 1. Oooilycar'n invtMilion rorcoiiiliiiiiii^ with riilfiidar rdiliT^, tin rliiHlic I'lnlli-ss nproti, tor inaniiracliniii;; «-oiTii;;atcti, nr Hliii-rcil, iiiilia riililu'C j^ooiis, iIim-h not consist citlur in tlic \vlio|t> niaciiiiik*, or ill any iiaiticnlar part ol' it, Itiit foii*i>tM in n ni'w coinbination of known nii'- cliaiiii'al priiu'ipli'rt or powiTs to pro- tliicc a new ami useful ctVoct. Wiirnt't' V. (loixfi/r'tr, M.S. — Cha.ncii, Cli. J.; 1). C, 1H»(J. '-*. The Niirn'iKliT of (loodycar's orij;- inal palt'iil for vnlt-anizi'd nililMT, of tliiiio l.'tili, IHII, and thi! roissiu'd pat- t'lit, Doccmlu'r i,'")tli, IH-H), was lff,'al, and tlic ri'iHHiiod piitont is not void upon itsfaoi'. JJat/v. (hHnlycar^'SX'A. — Giiiicu, J.; X. .T., 1M50. :i. Cliatios (Joodyoar niiiHt bo consid- crcil as tlio first and original invontor of till' process of vulcanizing india-riil)- bor. I hi I. 4. His rcissuod patent of Docomber 25th, 1840, is not void becanac of the publication of the invention, in his orig- inal and defective patent, in the interval between tlie original and reissued pat- ent, on the ground that such publica- tion amounts to an abandonment or ded- ication to the public. Ibid. A. r, in con. neclion with tlio<*e uiaterialM, it ran lit> made to aHNtiiiie rew and valuable >|ii,i|. iticN, distinguishing it from any otlur Hiilmtaiico heretofore known. ihl,l. 0. My tin* agreeineiitM of Oetnlicr 21itli, IHKI, NovemlMT 5tli, IHJH, uihI Di'ceiiilier Mil, JHlil, iiiiikiiijr nne mviit. ineiit, made by and between |[. ||. |),a and Charles r milpliiir, or iciitionxt'lii'.'U (li liotli, i'Itl\i'r rtiti:il aiwl lili« ill>«rry Mill il<'jir»'f 111' nil»l>or, ill «'<)ii. rliiU, it cull 111! I vitliiiiMi' •|u:il. nun liny •* !i tii'w (ir iimiiutafliiri', Mill «'Olll|MisilinM mill !iro |inili'it- jcitnit. (rir<>i^*o, aii'l lim. Ibiily 303. 10. Uiwdi-r ihi' fti^n-fMii'iit i»f Sopli'm. ber Mil, l^AO, iiiudi* lH'iw«'i-ti C'lmrttT, tfit' iiitli'iini't', ariil Willitiiii .liid'«oti, um lrii«ti't', that III*' latltT Hlioiild Imlil tin- paltiit, rviiiil hwWi till) foiitnd tlhToot'lor the lifUi'lrit «)f (iotxlymr iiml lliomi hold- iiii; riKlit"* niidiT him, th<< iiiiiri' owmr- ithi|i dl' *ilii* patfiit, li'^al and i'(|nitiiMf, hiiHi'd lo .liidHon. //iii'tn/iiirH v. />''y, li> Hw«»., '2120.— Nki.kon, J.; Sup. Cl., l^i^W. Tli«' H«iin' ili'cision inadf in Pui/ N. Cni'on /. a. r.>., 'JO How., '.m?.— Xwhos, .1.; Sup. Ct,, lMft7. 11. Th»' uun't'iiU'Mt ol'OotohiT UlHh, l^li!, liiu two Hiippli'incnt.al ai^rt't'int'iilM (if N'omiiiIht •'•th, Is It), and thf tuitht'f (Mi(> III' DiTi'inln'r .'ilh, In id, inadi' l»«'- tui'cii(i*i<>dy«^'ar and Day, and by whii-h (toudyrar Hold and asHi^ii«>d to Day tlif III!!, aliHoliit*', and fxcluxivts I'lKhl, li- (Tiisc, and pi'iviU-^c to inaki*, uni>, and Mild i*/tiirii/ (»>' lutrriiijutiil i/oix/n, and toihoivrtaiii inachiiu'ry aiitl coinpoundM ill coiiiH'ction tlit'n'willi, j;raiit«'d to Day iitily the ri^dil to make and vend such •liiiivd or roiTiig.'iti'd jjjoods as art' di'- Mribcil in, iiiul wurc patented t«)(»ootl- yi'iir, hy what is called the shirred j^oods |i:it«'iit, issued March !Mli, lHn,:iiiddid not router upon Diiy .any ri;;ht to use (loodyear's preparations, and iinprove- nu'iits iti iiidia-nibbor, or to uhu viilean- i/.('(l rubber in the inanufacture of any oliistic articles, or elastic j^oods, ov elas- tic cloths, except the n/iiri'(d or corru- ijitted goods inado according to such initcul of March 0th, 1844. J)a>/ v. Ca- rey, MS. — iNUKitsoi,!., J. ; N. Y., 1859. 12. The meaning of tlic words "shir- rod or corrugated goods," us understood :iml used by the parties to hucIi ov<< view, ho\te\er, taken in Maryland, by (iii.kn, J.; who held that hytliu rontraei of Oc< lober, -JtMh, |N4(t, tin* term Mhifml or ''<>rr»/,'/.iy, eoii< veyed such iiitcreHt t«» him. Ihnj v. Stdlmnii, MS.— (iiiKs, .1.; Md., |H.-,0. I !. The H.anie view taken in Ifiiy v. Shilimnt^ was also taken in Jhiy v. /ji/i)HH, MS.— M» C-'.vi.icii, J.; La., I mho, MkTKU'h CSkKAHR PATRiCT. Juueii Dtcember 'iOth, 1803. 1. The p:ilciil was for an " improvo- nictit in the nianufactnre of canntchoiic and other vnlcani/able gums," and tho cl.iiin was for the producing of smooth ;iiid glossy surfaces upon the hard com- pounds of caoutchouc and other vulc;in- i/able gums, by mejiiis of the use of oil, or other ej>j>ciiheii v. N. Y. G. P. Cumb Co., 4 Blatchf. — Inokksoll, J. ; N. Y., 1858. 2. But this patent granted the ex- clusive right to the use and application of tin-foil, or its equivalents, to the hard compound of india-rubber and gutta- percha, during the process of vulcani- zation, to preserve and retain, during the forujs and sh:ipcs given to liu i,i;i- terial, before the heating process com- luenccs, without any other pres.suro or moulds, I/iiif. <\. And though tin-foil or any othor flexible or pliable metal may have be- fore been used in some way, in coiaiw. tion with such gums, if they wore not substantially performing the saiiu urtice in substantially tlic same w:iy, tlu'V would not make this patent Inoporativi", or tleprlve the inventor of tlu' riifjit granted by it. If>liL 4, On a motion for an attacliiiiciit tor violating an injunction restraiiiiiiir the use of the invention described in tlii^ patent, J/clpe>iheHsen v, Falke, MS. - SiiiPMAX, J.; N. Y., 1802. Irregular Forms, turning. BiiANOiiAUD's Patent, Issw.d Septemher Gth, 1819. Issufd January 'lOtit, 1820. 1, The patent was for a " machine for turning and cutiing irregular forms," and the patentee in his specificaliou de- clared that, " as to the mechanical powers by which the moTements are obtained, he claims none of them as his iiivciitiini. These movements may be eftecteJ by 3, TUKNING. PARTICULAR PATENTS. 551 IKKKdL'LAH roRMS, TUUMNU. •ipiilic.ition of viirious powers iiiditror- ciitlv. Nt'itliiT does lie claim as his in- vontioii the cutter wheel or cutters, or Iriftion wheel as such, nor the use of a iiioiii'l to guide the cutting instrument, iiii his invention. But he chiims as liis iiivoniioii, the method or mode ot'oper- atiiin in tlio abstract, exphiined in the socond ariicle, whereliy the infinite va- liotv of forms described in general tiriiis, may be turned or wrought." L; the second article was described not a mere function, b\it a machine of a par- tii'iilar structure, whose modes {A' oper- ation are pointed out, to accomplish a i)artieular purpose, I'unction, or end. J/ch/, that his invention was tor a ]iiirtieiil;ir machine, constituted in the wav |)iiintoacity of the machine may be limited. Ibiil, 279. 0. Though it was claimed that tho machine would turn any irregular sur- face, but could not in fact turn a sipiaro shoulder. Held, the defect was too re- mote and extreme «o atlect tho validity of the patent. Fhhl., 280. 7. The i)rinciple or inventive element to be found in Blanchard's machine, is the cutting or turning of any given ar- ticle of an irregular tbrm longitudinally and transversely, by one joint opera- tion, by the combination of four instru- ments, the model, tho rough material, the tracer or friction wheel, and tho rotary cutter. Jili(f., 415. 9. A iH'rson who uses I'lanchard's ma- chine, though only for the performance of one of its functions, as turning wag- on spokes, is guilty of an infringement, I7)id., 41G. Renewed Patent, under Act of June 20th, 1834. The act w.as " an act to rencAV the patent of Thomas Bhmchard," but the references in this act to tho patent of Blanchard intended to be extended, did not agree with any of liis previously existing patents. Jleld, that the variances wcrr rucU that the court could not correct them, or give validity to the patent issued un- der such act. Blanchard v. Sprague, ^'■^•'"Wri.. '■-J-n r- M J ' ' h , , , J. . i ■w M '-'Hil , 552 r.vKi'u ri.AU ivsrKNrs. I.KAt> nrK M U'lllJOKH. ^^.^s '"^^ IS; ■^^wr"! ^ 2k •%k. Wi *. , ^ w. *^ ■ .M Siiiuu.. Jtl*, 'JSA, '280, — Sioin. .>.; Muss., is:»8. 1. Tho titio ol'this mt wm-^ ms (',>llo\v« : ";in ;\it t<> :\n\ ('iVoit tlu' iiUoMliou t>r an ac( ititillcil an a»'( to n'".o\v tilt' pad'iit of Thomas ISlaiii-li anl. ap|>ro\«'il .Iinio .WK ls;M." //i/ut I'ouhl Uc sMs|aiii«>'l upon onlin n) priut'iplos ol" fonstcniiion. />/.(«. ■/'^ff^/ V. iSpfiUfur, '2 Story, 1 71. Srouv, .1.; Mass., is;n>. L\ JJ I oj' thoa.'t ol' l.'^MO intcn.lv'.l o- jrno to assiiiiu't's (it' the ohl patcnl an otpially »'\(lusiv»' piiviloixo \\\ th«" o\ ttMi.iotl icini. AV.»/*«'A'f»v/'.v (iiin Sfiu'ft- Titriihxj t-h'^totyw \\\iniii\ I Khitoul". '27.5. Nit.sON. .1.; l'(.. ISUi. ;?. Thoaol ot' is:)i>, (AiiMiilinu r>i,in('h- anl's palrnt, iliil not ('\t"tvl 'in nn K'jr;>l ri:;hl nndor l!n' patoiit. hnl tho o\i'hisi\ (' 1 i^ht to ih(> invfi :' .>n.antatit>nary with rol.ation to tlio dios, as dosoribod." and Jd, "thi'oou- strUi'tinLj tho piston !>, hollow, in tht' uiannor dosoriboil, anil tho oondnnalion o{' tlio sanu> with tlu' lonir oorc or coro bolder, upon which tho |>iston islides," 'V\w Sfi'othi I'laini was tli,< cuo m ,\^^ piito. /f,l,f, that the patent. wi«s for an im pnn»Mnenl on the llnrr niaehine, ,iiui that the in\p>o\enient of th(> patintiH> enal'le.l Imn to nse ii lonij eoie or ('urc- holder, eMendin!'. lliron^h the iMin.nii.i hold stationary uitl\ iclalion (,i (|„, du's li> tivini; it l\ind\ a( the erossli,-;!,] ol' I he lianie, an«i by means ,i|' ihc ||,.| Knv piston slidinit upon the eore linliji.]', the delei't in the Ibni' niaehine ol' ilu' I inisleadiness ot' the eore was mil ii,| ol", as was also the deU'et in ilio lian. iHon niaeliine. of an iinperleel union Hr \he nu'lal, beeunse oi' the u ,■ nf ,1 biitlive i\ear the bottom ol' tin' e\lii\,||.| I holding a short eoie this bridjie hciii.' dispensed with in ihe 'Talh.ain niacliinr, T,i//hi»i \. /., A'.M/, •.' HIalehr,. I;.', 11 N i-tsoN, .1. ; N. v.. lM;eJ. ■J. 'I'he invention does nol, ho\V('\,i, consist in (he »'ombii\,ation ol" ilu' Iml low nun anil tin- eore or core Imlili"' alone c\liniiers slidinij upon rod., Imy. im.!; pre\io\isly t'viwted in nn'cliaiiii'nl eonstrnclions and in practical nsc Init in ad.aptinij- or .'ipplyinK this |uciili,ir cond)inalion to prodneinjj a nscfiil ;iii,l practical rc^^nll the niakini; lead |ii|ii' by i-uossure. Jl>i vwv \\\ (lis luvM, AfWUlNKK. I I'or " iiiipnni'- jmnkiniriiil't'sor ll ili.> claiin \vn!< linilx'r aiul '«tniiti.»lly \\u> muuc ; /AA/, lliiil tli*> iii><'iil<>'i> 'l> ii,>M'llv <>r tin' ni:n'lm»»'r\ t>m|>I('i|'l<' iii'o |>rm'tioal nporiiltiMi, liy whii'lt .1 ti**)'!!)! iirt it'll' tiT tniinnr:ii'liin< is iiri>l(l, tliiil llicfluim Wiis r.if ||ii< I'liiii Miiiilioii <r li'Mil Im tli'\ t'Idpcil, ;is 11 |i:irl <*l iIk' pi'<*!4M in (lie Nlru* ,<{' li'iiil p>p*'< ''t'l'l l''!il I'*'' <'liiii)i I'tiiilil iiol bo siiHtiiiiicil willimil ('Ml:ililis|iiii|r the iinvolly ol' llio (•oniliiiiiiliun. Ac liotj V. T,ii/i,in>, II How., I, v. IMi'l.MAN, .1,; Slip. ("I., I.''..'.'. I. Tlic tpK'^li'iii, wlu'llnr |Im< iii<\\ ly ilcvt'liipt'il piiipi'ily nricMil tli.'il wliili" iiiiilcr In-ill .'tiiil prcMMUio in ii clusc xcs M'l, il would, allcr u Ncpnnilioii i>r iiw |i;uis, niiiiilo pciloi'lly hm iiHnI in llio Inriii.'ilioii of pipi'M, nii^'lil' Imvr lit'cn p;il< iiufiilioii of iiKicliinn'} , wiiH iml ill llu> f.'isr. / />iii., ! VV. fi, TliiH piiltMil fiirlliiT «>\:iniiniil, iiiiij HiiMltiincil. Ac A'.iy y. T.il'.,im, 'J'.: How., ill. McI.ioN, .1.; Sii].. Ci., IHftU. (Ioknkm.'h Patknt. InsHfd Amjiisl 'Jl.sV, l.sn. Tilt' patciil w.'iH for jin " inipi'ovciMoiil, ill Ii'iid pipo niacliini'ry," and lln^ ina- I'iiiiic wiis :ilso iin improviiMKMil, n|»<'n llio IJuiT lUiiciiino. /AA/, till" inMiition ronHiMit in liming llii> Molid rum of linn, and phriiift llii« dit< in tlit< fiii'o of il, al tlio M.'inio limn oloHinji llic lioliom of IIiiii'm ry lindi'l', and lixin;;' llir corr Hi inly at tlii< Itolloiii, \\ line Mnn't die wm plat rd 'I'lif I'oro oNli'iiil'i llironjili till' t'yliinlt'i ami ililn till' dii> llniM Itvi'd III till' fai'i' of llio ram. In llio opt ration of ilii' mat'liino till' t'oic p,i ctiw tliroiif>|) tln< llio and into till' hollow ram noaily llio li'ii;',lli i)f il, till' pipo papiNln|> tliiiiii^li llio Hamn api'ilnrt' al»o\i>. /',i(fi,iiii v. /< A'o»/, •J IHal.'lif,, IMI, iHr.. Ni'i-ioN, .1. ; N. v.. Ih;vj. l.tU'OMOIIVI'M, \' AIM Mil H: l'!\ll\|i|i| oil'. Winanh' I'viwNr. Iitiliil Xiifi'inliri will, IMIO /•.'i7.'»r/,',/ S'orrmhn 'MMh, lUftl. I. 'rill' pali'iil wan foi' " lin Impfovn- nii'iit in rt'^nlaliii).r lli<< wiiMto Mltain of lot oniolivo cii^iiicM," mid llio i laim wiim lor iiii'irasinfJ!; or diminiHliin;( llio fono with wliii'li till' wiiMlo Mti'iim I'lili'i'K Ijin t'liiiiiiii'y at llio ploa^tnri' of llio i>mi;imafent was for a "new, iiii- pnived iiKjde of grinding, holding, ami accomiiiodating millstones." The part claimed fts new, was "eonm-eting the kid^re-treiJ with the top of the frame, or its substitute, in tln^ manner deserib- ed, aiul the mode or manner of elevat- iii<; or depressing the running Htone by the application of the screw to tlie Iridge-tree in the manner described, or any other producing the effect." The improveinent of the defendant consist- ed in the manner in which he con- stnuted the part called the pressure rod, which is intended to elevate the bridge-tree, and eonseciuently the run- ning stone, and to regulate the action of the mill in that particular jtart. Held, that the principle of elevating ^ and lowering the upjter stone, or run- ner, was that which was new, and which gave value to the machine, and that defeiulant's macliine, though dif- ferent in form, Avas the same in prin- ciple as to elevating and lowering the stoue, and therefore au iufringemont. SmUh V. I'furce, 2 McLean, 170.— Mc- Lkan, J.; Ohio, 1H40. Mori-nmns, making. SKUUKI,I,'S I'ATKNT. ImnudMay JCW, 1846. Iiii.s.iwil January Ith, 1H51. Ucissufd Jaw 21.VI, 1853. 1. The patent was f<>r"aniiiiproveincnt in imudiinery for making mouldings," and the »)bject of the invention was to make mouldings on an angular piece of wood, elVeeling a great saving of material. //«'/(/, that what was granted, among oiisers, is tlu* coniliination of the ring (»r ring.', with a cutti-r or cutters, for operating on an angular strip for mak- ing inoiddings, whether such angular stri|> be a hevel or an ((///////( Icir of iron to (li«> Ki/.t> ot' till' iiiiil, mill :i;rri|tin<; (lie li- unihI Ih'Iii^ a lovt-r of llio liist onlrr. //>/(/, lli:tt lli<> palciit w.'iN no( lor tlii' iiiacliiiic ilscir, wliicli is «'()iii|n»si'(j of |iai-ls \\lii«'li liax' liMi;^ licrtiiiit' |iiililic |iri)|i«iit, for an ini|>riiv('ni«'iil in the art of niakiti;; nails li)- inoaiiH of a nia- I'liino wliicli fills aiitl lii'aiis tlu- nails al oiii' o|)»'ralion. Il is iiol llu> jj^ranl of an altslracl piiiuMpK', nor of (Ih- dillrr I'lit ]iarts of any niacliint>, lnit of an iiii- ]irovi>nu>nl appliod to a |)articular iiso, I'rti'clcd l»y a «'onil»ination of various nu'ilianiial (lowi-rs to proihi'-o a lu-w rosiilt. (iiuti/ V. ./(. >"tf, Ti't. l'. C, lOo. — W.\«iii.\oroN, .1.; Pa.. 1817. •J. Ami that a niai-liiiic liav'nij two Jaws pivoted Iti-low, and worki'd hy a friilioii rolK'r :ind a Irvir of tlic srfond ordtT, tlH>difr»'i'oiu'«'s aslo such roller and lovor ln'infn>tt, l' S|.ir\ UU, ID'J, 104.— Hiouv, J.; IMI.'. Papkk, MANitKAjrrmtK or. Kniuiit'h I'atknt. I.viutJ Sfjitfiiilier 2ttth, 18.19. The patent was for an " improveimni in machinery for m.nkiii^ p.aprr," an! till' object of this machine was tin- inin. plction of the process of iiiainiliuliin. by ilyeinj;, eoiisolidatiiij^, anil_//,/M/,//„/. It tlid this by iiiipluyiMj; a Mciies of he.'iteil metallic cylinders, of wliicli tlii' heat is susceptible of •jradiiatiuii, aiiil which w«'re so arraiit;ed as thai Himw of tliem shall be pr«>Nsed upon Ity iho others, with regulated degrees of pri*. suri'. Tin- n;iked moist paper i<. mailu to pass alternately aiound and htiutiii these cylinib'i'.s, anil is thus prii;i,'ri>M\c'. ly dried ;ind consoliilaled by tin- lual and pre-siirc which itd«'rives fnnntlirm through the successive stages of tlie process. 7/rA/, th:it the principle of the cem. billed machine is the repeated action nt' heat and pressure applied allirii:iti'ly and diri'ctly upon the material, in do- gn'cs adapted to its progressive clianii.'- ter. The inuuber of the cylinders, tlicir exact rel.'itive position, their precise di- mensions, :uid the fact that soino - ,ii'iilt I'Mi'l^ <•'" •'"' abovi'-tlcHcrilit'tl iiia- ,|i„„.ry or !i|.|Kiniliis, iix my iinniliuii. \Vli;it I ••l;ii"i i'^t •'"' ••oiisliiictinii athl „„. of till' |H'<'iili:ir kiinl of ryliinlrr .|t- Miilinl, ami tliM Hfvcral parts tlnTcnr i„ roiiil'iiiii'i"" tor (111- |.ur|M»Hfs HfoiT- Jl.til, lllllt ll"' |»;i<'''lt WtlH lint fur tin- (.vlimltr aiitl tint several parts tlii-rrof, liiii il^ coiislriictioii and use, in ronilii- iiatioa willi lli»' otiu r parts n\' llii- nia- (hini'ry, lor tin- purpose ol" niakini,' pa- mr. AiiiiK V, //iiininf, I Siinm., Ib:i, 487.— Stoky, J. ; MuHs., Ih:i;(. rf,ANIN(J MacIIINKH. Wimidwoutu'h I'atbnt. rsr I [hrniiher 'fllh, 1H2H. KjUwt^i NoV'iiil'rr Uith, IHI'i. /frivfHoi Julu Hlh, I HI 6. Disclaimer on to thf. npfilii'itlinu n/ llir rirciilnr saw, JilalJ'iini.iiy 2'1, lHi:i. 1, Tlif patent, was for a ''newaii'l iise- fiil improveineiit in tlie nietlioi>k V. Si„n, I (low., VKl, I Ml,-.. I II. The specilieations of this patent d^'-^erihe the machitu* so as to enalile a skilful nn'ciianir to cnnstrnct it. li con tains nothing w hicli an intclligenl mind, though hut lillle ver>ed in mechanics, may uol fully comprclnrid. The facts that the moving power is deHcrilied in some of its parts in the alternative, and that the material, wlu'lher wood nr iron, of roii-lruclinii is not slated, are not material. //*/f/., 2tlO, '2i\\. •1. The Kpecifications show with nji- soiial)le certainty the comhination of which the inviritioii consi^ts. /{ri»>kt» v. Iti. The invention of Wo<>dwf>rth con- si«ts in the combinatiuii of certain known mechani<-al structures, hy which hoards are planed, tongaed, .and groov- ed in the samti operation, fhhi., \'>'.\. 0. The use of "pressure rollers" in- stead of a carriage to nmv(! the plank to the cutters, and the placing the plane irons on a wheel or arms o*'a shart, and inclined ho tliat the cutting edg(!S gen- cratjt a c«»ne, insteatl of having the cut- ters on a cylinder, do not change the principle of the machine. Ibid., 455. 7. The patent is for a mode of accom plishing a particular end by certain •^>-C mM'. -c^ili ^^^->> «"' *i» '"''^^' ^;^;»,. *»..' a i mi!»» I *■* c : ^ , , •'^^M'' U; f H— ■* ) -..I- Ht I'AUTK'ITT.AU TATKNTS. PLAMIIIO MAOIIINMk mpjiiiM ; for mm !i?n'j»iit»» «>r Ifnprovnl in!i«'liiiu>. W'linfi/mrn v. (iniiltf, :t .S(n- ry, 110, 151, KiH. — SrouY, .1.; AIiimk., IH 1 1. H. Tin* rt'tu'wcil IctlcrM piitciif irniiil- I'll to Williaiii W. WiiiMlwortli, :nliiiiiiiH tialtir, on tlu' hiIi ol" July, I h i:», mt' i;r any oilier i'liiisc. WHmo/i V. JiitMMiini, i llow., OhH. — Nklson, .1.; Sup. ('!., IH15. 0. William Wooil worth Im to lit* cop- hi(1«>r«<(l (lie orit;iiial and tir^tt iiivnitor of the |ilaiiiiiL; inacliiiic, |iatciit«'il (uliiin J)i'cciiiiK'r 'JTtli, IH'JN. Wiuuhnort/i v. Wih»>i, •• IIow., 71rt. — NiXHov, J. ; Slip. Cf., lH4r). 10. Woodworlli'n Npocifli'alions can only Ik> Niistain(>d tor a ooiiiliiiialioii of known ini'rliauical poworw, :iiid not for nn improved marhiiic. lirook-itx. /lii'l- tieU, 4 Mi'IiOan, 73, 74. — McI.kan, J.; Ohio, h^jT). 11. Tlu' AmfreirA machine, no cdlh.'d, Mhitli used ;i planinir cylinder, but iio tomjniiif; or grooviii;; wheels, and iisod n carriage instead of frictidii rollers to move the planks forward, sueh carriage Iteintf moved l»y nn endless ehaiii, and the planks heiiiix kept down on the ear- riaire hy springs adjusted on frame-work near the planiiiL; cyliiuh'r, was held, on a motion for an iiijimotion, to he an in- fringement on Wood worth's patent. (iiiiaon V. Ihtts, 1 Ulatehf, 164.— Nel- Bov, J.; N. Y., 1840. 12. Tho substitution in a plaining nuichine of two sinooth plates of iron, oper.'ited by a screw and a spring, to press down the board upon the moving ])I:itfbrm, in the place of the pressure rollers used by Woodworth, is not a sub- stantial departure from Woodworth's contrivance. Gibson v. Jftiris, 1 IMatchf., no, 171.— XKt,N<»!f,.I.; >r_y |s»(i. ■' i:i. Tlio e«uu>or disk Hliaped wlncl,,!" tlio MacfJregor machine \h an enuiva. lent for the planing cylinder um.I \,y Woddworlh. tSlniif V. /'fi/hi/itni,^ \ WcnI. I,aw .four., 00.— Ka.ni, .1.; p., |H4(», I I. Tho Murd'nt/or machiru', wlii,.), has, ill plac(* of the cylinder cairviii' the knives, an ol»lu>«e «»r llatten.,| ,",,||,. (U'conically shaped wheel, the kirh(wl„|. iiig in a plane inclined to the mxIm or shall of the wheel, the change in iiriion of the knives «'nnsisting sini[plv in ||,|, knives p!i>sing over iiiort! of the mii|';,(,! to be plaiu'd, :md cutting a part of tho tlistance erosHwlse of tho board, in an infringement of file W Iwortli pulcni. I'li/i Hook V. I'oiiiUtiiti, I I Mat (III'., l!)i. — Ilirns, J. ; N. v., 1H40. 1.'). 'V\w lih'kiull m:ichin(>, wliicli lia.l a jdaniiig wheel similar to that ot" the M:ic(Jrcgor machine, in he |u)iiit> in which the latter is claimed to he ilitKr- ent from the Wood worth machiiii', was also held to be an infringement of Wond- worth's patent. IhiiL, 192, 10. f/f^y',-* machine, which iiicoiistnic tion was like tho ]Ma<'CJregor iiiMcliiiic, wa.s also held \i> be an infringement nf Woodworth's p.ateiit, on a luotinn t'luau injunction, by K ani:, ,/. , J*a., ll>l,l., 102, 17. The case of Wi/sn/i v. liiimnH, 4 How., 044, was founded on (lie aiiiciid- ed specification of 184.5 of Woouwerlh^ pati'iit, anniiH' Court that the patents of IKL'Saiiil 1845 were both for the same invention, Ifnd., 104, 195.— Nki.son, J. 18. The Supreme Court, ill Wilsouy. liossc'iit, 4 ITow., 040, 1845, proceidod on the ground th.-it tlie reissued ]iatiiit of Woodworth, upon the surrcndtT af- ter the second extension, that bv act of (««%iUS|ji| ^ rAUTIClILAU PATKNIU ftS» I'l.ANINO MAnillNRH. MOW, J.; NY., n)i;i|m' Itniird, is ail (Midwortli |i!il('iil. »/(, I i;i;il(lif., 11)1. midline, which liiiil l:ir to that of tlic ill lie )ioiiil> ill iiiii'd to hv ditfir- >rlli macliiiu', wm IJ^CIIU III tifWciiul. A, in-j. wliifh iiu'oiistnic- ('•ro^or iiiMchinc, I iiifrinircMiH'iit (if in a nil •! inn I'oriiii .,J'a., //././., ini i/son V. Jtosmiu^ \\vd oil (lie aincml- ') of Wooiiwdrlli'i I l»y Iho Sii|ir('ino of l8L'8aii(l lf^45 same iiivoiition. SON, J. inrt, in Wilson\. , 1845, procCfiUHl |ie reissuoil pate'iil the suitcikUt at- n, that by act of (i,„ufp.ss wiiH viiliil. H^iiinlwitrth V. i:i,Mi'(hy :< Wo.hI. it Mill., 127. - \V Ill KV, .1. ; MiiHH., |MJ7. 111. 'I'hi' |>laiiin^ iiiachino pali'tiloil lo Hiipwii, of Vfriiniiit, ill Nuvi'IiiImt, IhJ.i, \\w< hcM» ill >t >*iiit' )>r(iiiKht ii^aiiiNt tho iiiiit'iifri' ill V%'riiioiit, to lu« Niilmtiiiilially liki' Wool I wort h'n, mnl its iimo rcHlrniii- ,.il |)v iiijiiiii'lii'ii. Wiiuihnnrth v. A'o- ,/,(vi, 1 Wooil. tt Mill., 1 t'J.— Wooniiif- uv,.l.; MasH., 1HI7. 'jo. Till' formor (h'ciMlonH ns to the Wiii>il«'ii"th |i:it»'iit, ill i'fS|K'c| to thi' iiiivi'lty •>!' Iho iiivi'iitioii, ami whi'lhor Will II I worth wu« tliu Hi'Ht ami ori;,'iiial iiivt'iitor; anil an to tlicHiirn'inli'r of tlir iiatiiit anil its rcisMio of the H||i .Inly, isl,'), witli an aiiii'iiiU'il siinification ; and a.i to tho iiloiility of tlio iiivoiition covcreil by th« ori^in.al ami roisMiioil |i.it('iits ii|>|>rov<'il ami icafllrmcil. (llli- ii,i, V. fi'ij/oni, I niati-lif., .'iilO.— Ni:i.- s.)\, J. ; N. Y., 1 H.-id. 'Jl. Rotary ^uidos, ho airaiii^i'd ami ailjiisicil lis to pt'oss, Ity incaiiK of wciylils ii^iiiiist llu' imIj^cm of tin iMi.iril whilo it is uiulcrfjoinij tlu> oiicratioii of (he plMtii' or cutter, and such ^^uidcs lifiiijif placi'd iiiilii|U(>ly,Honiowliat to tlio iiiolioii of the hiiiu'd, so that their position pio- iliiccs, as tlioy revolve ajfaiiist the (hI^os, a constant tendency to keep the board to its bod (us patented in 1H49 to Levy, a^sii;np(^ of Knowlc.-*), are but an <(/u(l- o(/oii» (h'vice for the pressure rollers of Wodtl worth's patent, wliicli jiet upon the fjico of the board, lioth are used for the same purpose, and lead to the same result, thou<'li arranifcd and ad- jilted by a somewhat different niechan- iciil contrivance — the only ditrcrence be- in;,' til 3 application of tim pressure to a ditfereut part of thi! board. Gibson v. VimDrcssar, 1 Blatclif., 534, 535. — Nklson, J,; N. y., 1850. 2'i, Thti UNO of n revolviii({ ciittor- wheel — as ulso [iiitetited to haid l.ivy— liaviiiK oIlsetH or bevels near its outer periphiry, to allow a bo;iid tbirkir than the liiii>«lii-d work is inlemlcd to lie to enter between the ed(;i.''i, ri.uj. V!3. Woodworlirs pjiteiil is mil for an oi'piiii/.i'd iiiachiiie, contaiiiin;.; parts per- foriiiiii^ certain fiiiictiiniM, and pnidiiciii^ certain ri'siilts, irrespective of the p;ir- ticiilar instriiiiii iitalities so operalirii;, but it is clearly for a coiiiliinatiiui only. //A)r>/j? V. /<'ii Hill inachinc, and tint only idiantje made by Woodworth con- sists in placing; the rotalin;^ cylinder, which, in Hill's ni.'ichine, w.is in a lixed pimitiitii below the bed, in a fiM'd posi- tion above the bed. This arran^yenient f^ave to the pressure roller, in ;idilition to its function of kccpini^ the Imard ilouii upon the bed, tlir liiiii'tinn, per- fo'-nied by the bed in Hill's riiachine, of keepini» the liuard from beiiij^ drawn into the axi.s of the cutter. The efFect of such arrantfeinent is to plane the board on the upper instead of the un- der side, and the result is, that the board coim.'s out of an uniform thickness, which was not .accomplished by Hill. Ibid. 25. In the Norcross m.ichine, the ar- nangement of the pressure roller, bed- pii'ce, and cutter, is the same iis Hill's ; his improvement consists in making the cultini; c vlinder move vert icallv, and con- iiccting it with hi.s rest orjiressure roller, so tliat the distance between them is al- wjiy.s the same, and tlu; board thereby reduced to a uniform thickness. Jbid. ^'k>i •Ai* atunt. Jt>i>/. 'JH. The i»la)iinj;f inaclntiof <>f A«1iton it Wiiislo'.v, and of Ashton tfe IlctTN, ari>i"|>:i- ratits ut* thoHo niHchhu'M, and of tho 8intwdi'U ni.ichini', arc tli«' siuno um tlmMi' Usutl liy Wotidwortli. >^l(itit v. J'ltttu/t, 24 Jour. Fr. Inst., 3d fScr., 20, 27.— Kank, J.; Pa., ]r')'2. 2!>. The iiivi'iition rrlicd on in W(»od- wortii's p.'itt'Mt, is a new cuniliinalioii of three cli'ini'iils to produce tin' result of ]»Ianin<^ a jilank agulnHt its motion tln'oui^h tho niachinu; the claim of mo- nopoly is tim iii|»loynu'iit of rot.ary |)l;uu's in coml)iiiati and iMclining to th(> back p:u't (if tin' mould-lioard, should have ultmit ihrc,, times tho rnditis of certaiti descrilinj smaller segments, and tluii procccijnl; "This being thus worked off uiiifdriiilv forms a scetion is found to fit or ctnbraeo every part of the furrow slice far more than any otlup shaped plough." y/f/(/, that tho jatent imist ho mi. strued, \\.>\ as extending to every nioiiM. board worked by circular or sjilicrir lines, however those lines may cnts"! each oilier, and whatever may lie tliiir iolative j>roportionH, and whoso liiir forms n section of a loxodroniic or sjii- ral curve, but as :ipj>lying only to nidiilil- boards, conforming to the i);n'ticiiI;u'(K'. scription contained in the spccitiraiion, and of the precise and dclinite slinpi' prescribed, and worked out by segiiuiits of circles of the exact form and judpiir. tions mentioned ; and that in const niin;' the sjiecification, the word ahont m\< be disregarded, and tho patent \k re- stricted to tho mould-board as desLiib- ed, independent of that Avord. Dum V. J'altmr, 2 Brock., 305-308.— 3lAr.- SUALL, Ch. J. ; Va., 1827. .- ■-i •-wi ;. IHT. i(, 182 A. Ttalii " liuprov- ftioti of intitiM- riio m>(M'itic!itiuii of work'mi; iK.' 'c< of till' iikm,!!. I'M, \]W illlp|ii\, » cin-uliir (ir s|ili(. •Ircli! or s('i;iin'iii lints of tfit' An\T\> liiick part of i||,. mvo afxnit ihrci' lertiiin (U-Hcvilwil 1 thru |il'()C('cilril; kcil otV miit'nrinly, oxcMlniinic or h\i\- IHilii'd to pr.ictico I'aci' livt'ry part nf rt' thmi any otlur ■lit muHt 1k' roil. 1^ to every luoiilil. fcular or spliciic linen may cnix 'vcr may lie tlnir iiiiil whoso ihcc hxotlroiiiic or siii- 111^ only to nioiilil- tilt' particular (If- tlio spiH'itii'atioii, il (li'llnito sliapt' out liy si'giiirilt< form ami \r- liat in const ruin;,' ord about must lli(> patent 1)L' re- l)oar(l as (li'scrib- lit word. D'tm 305-308.— Maf.- PAimCULAll rATK^VT^. ftAllJt rOR R. R. OaMIAOM. raotJTT k Mkar'b rATwrr. Jatimi .1/(1 r A Uh, INSO, 1, Ti»u patent, was* for "a new imd u*(ii>'' tlie standard, and land-^idc, Mt Its to form an anifo uiij^If with tho pliiiic cf f ho Hhurc ; 2il. Th«' plai-inyf tlic bciiin on A linu parallel to the itind-Nidf aitliiii tlie liody iif the ploii^di, ;tnd ItH ,1 III II' nearly in the perpendicular of till' (x'litre of rt'MiHtani'u ; and !ld. The fiirininjx Iho top of tlio i»tai)(lnril for lirncc iiiid draii'iht. ll,ltf, that the patent was for a com liiiwtii>n, and a eoinhination only. Tin' ii*(f of one or more of the parts less iliiin tlic whole, is no infriiii^emeiit. Pi'iiiiiii . Draper, 1 Story, ,")7l. — Ijyrv- KV,J.; Mass., IH41. 2. The extension of the standard, and the j()},'t,'ing it into the beaiii, are daim- (•4 as iiiaterial pans of the jdaintifV's imiirovoment ; in forming the top of tlie standard for braee aiul draught. I'riMtj V. Jitif/*fkn, 10 I'et,, ;340. — Tani;v, Ch. J.; Snp. Ct., 1842. I'uDDT.E Ralls, uollino. Bubden's Patent. Issiitd DeeemhifT 10th, IfilO. 1. Tlio patent was for "a machine iisiil ill the mamifactnrc of iron, com- monly called a s(pieez(>r, and used for coavertin!.' puddler's h.'ills into blooms, in rolling mills, and rolled the bii'ls be- tween reciprocating plates or tables, or bctweou a revolving cylinder and a sta- 30 tlonary Rcvfrnontal troti{]^h, mUH BtAtion- ary llmr.res." J/'lif. that the patent was forn new prtH'eNH, nioii(>, or method, of eonvertiii^j; puddler*H bulls into blooms, by eohtii u- < us pri>M! Accomplish tho ob- ji'ots of hid invention, by the process, nl<^d<', or metholio ■Ni f^' Hf ' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) III 1.0 ^i^KS I.I 125 u, |j£ ^... 1^ u u 1*0 i 2.0 V ^ /^ c* ^% ^ J> > >^ ^><^ '> Sciences Corporation 23 WEST M«IN STR£ET WEBSTER, N.Y. M580 (716) 872-4503 ,\ V ^ ■m mv m t* ■^ '^.<^ .^'' 1 39 Mi 502 PAUriCULAR PATENTS. '|*^ plied, if not to chairs, at least in other ma- chines, to purposes of a similar nature. Held, that the invention, at most, was an old invention, apparatus or machinery api)lied to a new purpose, and that the patent was invalid. Hean v. Smalhoood, 2 Story, 411.— Stoky, J.; Mass., 1843. Saddles. Dixon's Pate.^t. Issued July lUth, 1849. Tlie patent was for " an improvement in manufacturing men and women's sad- dles without saddletrees," but the pat- entee did not distinguish what wai< new from whsit was old and Ik toie jn use, nor jtoint out in what piu'tidilais liis improvement consisted; J/dd, that ilm patent was therefore void. iJixon v. Moj/er, 4 Wash., 09, 73.— WAsiiixoTo.v, .1.; Pa., 1821. Saw-]\[ills, CincuLvn. NoRCBOSs' Patent. Issued January I5th, 1800. The patent was for an " iiMprovoincnt in circular saw-mills." The invention was for suspending the saw, so it could have lateral vibration, Mhicli was ac- complished by supportirg the boxes in which the journals of the arbor run, ui)on standards, to which the boxes were jointed, and being themselves jointed to their foundation, so that tlie arbor was kept horizont.il, while it was allowed sufficient later.al play, and when thrown out of line it would recover it- self by the action of the driving belt, which waa effected by passing the Itelt up over a drivhig pulley above, thus holdir.g the frame up to the proper point, so that the saw was actually sus- pended by the belt, while it was kept steady and made to move properly by the frame below. Held by the covrt, that the patent was not for the two improvements— 1st, permitting the lateral motion of the saw mandril or arbor, by the device of the rocker boxes, and swing frame ; .and 2(1, restoring the saw to line by the elastic- ity of the belt acting as a reacting agent — separately, but for the combi- nation of the two, and that the use ot a metallic spring instead of the swing ish what was ;uiy, anil when ould recover it- :he driving belt, passing the belt ley above, thus to tl'.c proper was actually sus- hile it was kept love properly by that the patent provemcnts— 1st, notion of the saw the device of the ith, 1841. Extended July nth, 1865. 1. The invention was for an "improve- ment in portable, cireiilar saw-mills," combining free end play of the saw niandril with guide rollers at the pe- riphery- Jleld, that the pf.tont was for the com- bination of end play of the saw shaft with guide rollers at the periphery, and covered the use of guide pins instead of rollers, if they were used for the same purpose. And that it did not evade the patent to employ a collar or shoulder on the shaft, if there was still sufficient free end play or lateral action of the saw arbor to accomplish the saw- ing successfully. Puffe v. Georgia, MS.— Hall, J.; N. Y., 1856. 2. The patent is for a manner of affix- ing and guiding a circular saw by al- lowing end play to its shaft, in combi- nation with the means of guiding it by friction rollers near its periphery, so as to leave its centre entirely unchecked laterally; Held, that the improvement comprehended by the patent was the freedom of revolution of the saw, at its centre, entirely unchecked laterally, used in combination with the friction rollers, embracing the periphery of the saw. Page v. Ferry, MS. — Wilkixs, J.; Mich., 1857. 3. Or, the patent of the plaintiff cov- ers merely a combination of the use of rollers, or their equivalents, with a saw that has no chock to its lateral motion, at tlie centre, bu! lias free end play, so ;is not ill any case to have an end bear- ing against a shoiiluer in its ordinary revolutions. Ibid. 4. Tlu! claim is for the precise org.ui- ix-ation described, the manner of at'ix- iiig and guiding the circular wiw by allowii'.g end play to the shaft, in com- bination with the means of guiding it by friction rollers, embr.acing it m-ar to it.s periphery, so as to leave its centre entirely unchecked laterally. P/ii/Hjts V. Page, 24 IIow., 167. — Nklsox,J.; Sup. Ct., IHOO. 5. It having been shown that mills of like construction had been used for sawing shingles ; Held, that the patent could not be sustained, because of its application to the sawing of ordinary logs in a saw-mill. Ibid., 100, 107. Sewing Machinb;. Howe's Patent. Issued September 10ill l)('l'.Vfl'll tin' iKH'dlu ami its tiircatl, uikUt a coiiilti- iiatioM ami arraiij;cun'nt of parts Hub- stantially as (Icscriltrd. Ifoiet'. v. Mor- ton, l;} Mo. Law Uop.— Si'KAc.iK, J.; 3IaMs., IHdO. 2. Tho claim may l»o considerod as for flio jjiMicral combination and ar- raiiLrt'nu'nt of tlu' ])arts described in the spccifici'tion, cmbracinijf tlic mcclianism for forminj^ the stitcli; the nu'cbanism consist inroducin<^ the result. Sinner v. Wul/nalei/, MS. — Giles, J.; Md.*, 1859. 2. The second claim of sudi patont is for the invention of a friction pad placed between the seam and the bobbin, to make a slij^ht pressure on the thread to prevent the formation of a loop above; the cloth, but not surticicnt to prevent the needle drawinjjf the thread tlirou "'>!«' 0/' U BOrt I'AKTICULAU PATKNTS. HRWINO MACUIN'M. ^ i**: ^kkZ ■^.,w>^^ under KiirliU'O of the iiiiitorial to lu' nowt'il, while the tahio aii^werH tin- imr- ]ios(' III' sti-ip|>iii;^ tlif material from tlu; li'i'il wliccl and to cover and |irote<'t the mechanism wliich operates it. Sui;/- er V. Wiilinnlei/, ^lS.~Liiu:H, J.; ^Id., l8r,o. 2. Tlia third claim is for impartinj; tlie feedinij motion to the feed wlieel, for spacin-^ the stitches, hy j^riitinj; tlie Iterijiliery by u griiiinj; lever, in contra- distinction to the action of a pawl on a ratciiet, whereby the extent of the feed- ini; motion may be adjhsled a-id varied to any dcLjree, instead of beinj; restrict- ed by t he size of the ratchet teeth. //>/ operator, :ind the pu'pose was to secure a regnlarity of stitch and also that lln- seams might be n('wed of any conoid, erable degree of curvature. 2. For llu' method of holding the cloth at rest by the needle, as described, in comliinatioii with the method tlescribed of causiii^ it to progress regularly. ;i. So arran^'- ing the feeding surfaces that they, (ir one of them, should also perform tlu; otHc* of stripping tho cloth from tlio needle as it rises. A\\i\ 4. For inoimt- ing or attiu'hing one of the; feeding siir- faces, HO that it could be removed or drawn away from the other at jileasmv, to '.'fTect the objects set forth. The secoml claim was admitted to be valid, but the others were disputed. Potter V. Ifollund, MS. — Inokksoi.i,, .1.; Ct., 1858. 2. JfdiJ, th.it the devices or nuans specified in the first claim were sulliciciit to cause the cloth to progress rcyulaily, merely by the joint instrumeiMiilify (if the two feeding surfaces, between wliidi it is clasped, and without the aid of the needle or any other instrumentality, and that the patient was not invalid, because a useful result was not produced by the means specified. Potter v. Ifollmul, MS.— iKGKUSOLr,, J.; Ct., 1858. 3. The third claim was for giviiii; one of the feeding surfaces the addi- tional function of a stripper; Ifeld as to this, that the mode of arrang- inir the feedinj; surfaces, as i)ointe(l out, so that they, or one of them, in addition to the office which they per- formed as acting as a feeder, should also perform the oftice of a stripper, was new, and was not known before such invention, and therefore the grant of right in that patent for such arrange- ment was vaUd. Ibid. '-il'*: U I'AlillCULAU PATENTS. fi07 UWINil MACHiyU. • IduuI rit" till' vas to scciirf !vls<) tlcit tlic liny (Miiisid. , 2. l''nr llif ih :it rest liy I fuinhiiiatinii 1(1 of ciuih'uij,' 3. So arraii;,'- tliat Uk'V, iir I jJiTfiinn tlii; (ith IVom till' . Kor mount- (> toi'diiif; sur- c rcmovril or or at iik'asun', b forth. TIk' ;(1 to 1)L' valid, >\itc!(l. J'offer tsoi.i., J. ; Ct., ices or incaus wi'vo suiViciiMit rress remilaily, riuiK'i'lality of bt't wcoii wliidi the aid of the unontality, ami iivalul, because roilucetl hy the r V. Ifoll'iHiJ, ,, 1858. as for givlntr ires the aihli- lipper ; Jfehl ode of arrang- es, as ])ointeil tie of them, in ■hich they per- feeder, should of .1 stripper, known before ■eforc the grant )r such arrange- 4. Hut cuch jyriuit will not |»reveiit : any oiie li'oni usiiij; any Mtripper which I WHH known and in use prior tu thu in- ! i«'nti<»'i of Wilson. J/tiif. j T), The fourth claim was claimed to : bo invalid for the reason that it red at the same time admit of its being turned by the hand, so as to new curved seams. Potter v. Holland, jIS.—Nki.son, J.; X. Y., 1800. 7. This conception is caj)ableof being enihoilicd in a working machine in va- rious modes and forms ; but so long as the inventor's ideas are found in the construction and arrangement, no mat- ter what may be its form or shape or appearance, the party using it is :ii)pro- liriating his invention, and is an infring- er. Ibid. 8. All the several claims rest upon and grow out of the main improvement in the feeding apparatus, and this -le- vico being novel, these deiiendent com- )inations and devices may well be main- amed. Ibid. Reissue No. 414. 1. What is patented by the patent No. 414 is a sewing machine, liaving m combination the three elements of a ta- ble or platform to support the material to be sewed ; a sewing MU'chanism prop- er; and a mechanical automatic feed. The only element claimed as new is the mt'chanical feed autoinatic, by whi'-h the cloth is nuide to progri'ss regularly to be sewel«>lll(MllH klHIMII A 11 \ViIJ«.» til' lrii\ < iiini'liini>, ('iiAuou \. Iiiii>/, MS. I'l iri-iiiii>, .1. . '»'. 'I'lio im|iit>vi>iiuiil ili".i'riln',| niilio •ii>i'«isi'* i«) II riinih'l ui inn it-Ill vliap. .1 .llMt'lltlljrilljr (|-, lijiv. iiij.; limit I. tw 111 !nri's( i|ii< stuil ;iii,| in,. I Mill lit ilii>|i|iiii)', ii|iiiii lilt' i;riMiiii|. ;uh| Tliit |i,ilt'iil ix .III iiii|in<\t'iiii'iil <>iill\i' ,i'.si,( (ii i;iii\ ii riMiinl llu> umm oi' \,.\ I'll'.! m.iii.'ii tinlii ii.i'.l in i. i--«iii ■■ Nnv I'luunii iiinl iifi't'li'iiilo ilN i'«'iiliitii!i;i| :i|n, III I 111- .mil. .'. iuti\ 111!', lltt' I'lxlh I |tir«'i', //'ill. to lilt' tuM'tlU', i"' t',iiiHti/i' il. i u \\h\ tir |il;iit« nf iiii'l.il, nr iit i'i|im:i mill :i.l\ ,iii> I' III'.!!' .iiinilu r slili'li. Tlu' Ifiil, |iliifi'.l in iVtiiil nl' mul t'lMiiMiiii! i'll'fi'l I-, i«' I'n'i' lilt' f!«'lli ri.Mii lilt' hill"- I'll (' in it'^ r.iiiin, willi ii Mim\ :ii;,iiii In M.b mitt> il. 'riu> ii.i\t'll\ t«r ilu' iiixt'ii with lilt' t'i'iilril\iijiil tli^'liiiriti'i, i.> |ii,. M'lil llio t'lili iiiifi' i>r fill it'iils III' an ml,, lilt' tlisflimm'T, wliicli niii'.lii iiiii'irii,. titui >\ :i>* ilis|iiili'.l. //././, I'loin lln< w illi llu> |irti|iiT tliHiriliuiiiHi nl' llif sni,!, t'\ i.ltMit'i", ill. II N\ lUiMi \\;i- lilt' lii-i in In lilnwiiij;' il mil nl' iis |irti|ii r |i,.siii,,ii VtMitnr nl' lln> iiii|irn\ t'liii'iil ilt'^i'iilii'il. (; ■,>f- • ,(" /id.r s,w. M,h h. r... V. >,'...(/, MS. Ni.istiN, .1.; \. v., l.'MlO. SowiXtJ Skkp. Omioov's I'virM'. Kufs:/..! M.ii, \';',. ls,.S. 1. Tilt' |i:itiMil w :is Inr mi *' iinprnvt>- lUtMlt ill M't'iliii'j, in;itliiiu's." miil llu< nh jt'i't nl' tlu- inxoiiliiiii \v:is (n snw sft'd liroatloiisl ;is I'lo nincliiiif \\:»s tiriiwii altMiij. Tho nissiu'tl patoiil lia>l Iniir claims. // iiuprnvi>!i'..'iil.>i cnviTi'il bv tlu> ru>i t'laini nl' tlu> jliU'iiI aro, 1st. A tiiliular oliamluM' or ili^'liariror rnl.at- inj; rapiilly on a luMizniii.-il .-ixis, liaviiij; its odiTO in a plain*. viMtifal, t>r near- ly so. tt> tho hori/.nti, and nju'ralinix liy ooiitriliisral 1\mvo i;t'norali'tl by tlio I't'vn- lution nt'tlu' oh.'unbiM', t»> throw out ilu> sooil in a piano ot'tlisi«harixi', vrticil or ucarly so to the horizon, and poi-piMulif- \\\n\v il is siill in ilit< fliaiiilifi'. /A/,/. I. Tilt' iiiiprti\(d, mill ilfliMi- it in (lu- iIIm li.'Hi'.i'r, siit'li litippiT lu'iiiL': I'oiiiliiin'il with lilt' diM'liai'nt'r, ami Inn inif a ^lir ri'i' In slir lilt' uraiii. and a )'iili' al ih moiilli lo ii'!',nlali' till' tpiaiilily ni'i'iain thai will pa'-s niil ami I'f ,sn\\ n. /A,./, ."i. Ill III, alsn, ih.il lilt' st't'iliii;; Ilia- fliiiin palt'iili'tl In .\iiinn IJiiiir, Maiili 'Jd, IS.i'ii'. was an iiirriiim'ini'iil mi ilu> piiUMil ol' C'ahonii. //*/t/. Si'kam-Knuinich. SU'MKS" P.VTKNT. Is.iu<\i SfptrmWr VMh, \Hi(\. 1. Till' palt'iil was I'nr an " impnnc- nii'iit in sli'aiii-t'iiLjim's, in foniH'ctinij; the i-ylimltT ami sit'am-flu'sl." Tlu' cLiim was lint simply Tor caslini!: I he sicam- olii'st w ilh llu> fylimliT, or with llu' tvl- iiulor bottom and oomlonsor, hut I'nr tho l»i ^m >v\\\<\ (•omiiun'ii liin ill!': !i siii- ;iiiliu <'l !',raiii M'llU'Ml oil till' ail " im|in)V('- ill fonui'i'liiiu ,.st.'"riuM-lmm Iiil:; tilt" sli'.'ii"- 1)1- willi tlu' ("vl- tsor, but (or Uio ivMnnriMj ivvri'M's. niip ,.„,;|„i.l i>i' fUMllHjt tliotn tiHflli''! ikn t!i' «t»vuii Hiitldi'iily. In oitniiPitlitn wllfi ., ,il„ ,1. . lltf Inml |>i Mi|i w ii'i ili'sfi ili«'tl II " « lid r //. A/, lit l « K"* HI'I'lllol to lllt< I llOX," t)|- ll|ltit'l, NO ttH III I'll .,,ji,,iil,n> |»y llti'< |tiil»'iil \M\-*, ^fiiHf, llic iililo lliii iMiKiiit'i'r III it'i' llii' Wili'i' ^iiiiij^ liiilinU lli«' "ti'iHH ••'••' I Willi llii'<>liii ,1,1, \<\ llli>l»i"K •!"' ''i'l'"* "• ill"' Nlrllll ,'|ii" ,\|in«'i ilii'il, timl til,' IIKkI*' *'I lli:lkill)r llli> lllllli'llllli'lll'i williciiil llii' I'liiililiiiiiliniiitt till' llitiii'lii"*, will It till' I'oiiili'iiNi'r IN iiiil I'll 1 liiii' ,.r llii' oIiikI*'!' KK'I •li^lilli't llirirlViMii. S.fUi> V. /Vii' I'luufli' Mitil Sfrinu.t/it/< I..,, I niiilrlil. Iniikiihiii.i,, J.; N. V., 'J. Ami Hd'intif, wlii'ii lln» I'oiiili'iHor i'i on ll liiii' wilii llii< i'>liiiil<'r, tiinl iinir til il, llii' riiMliii!: <>iii< Hli'aiii rlii'^l u itii |!>i> I'vlllliliT, mill llir olIliT Willi llli> I sliiiili r liiiltniii mill cutiili'iisiii', liy nmk- ii,.; |ln> siilc iilniu' sli'iiiii I'lii"! till' tiiilc ,.| lIll' OjlillillT, illlil till' Midi' of llio dllu'i' hli'iim-rln'^ >li'aiii-i'lu's| is HO I'liMl, on ilu' rvliinliT mill llii' iilliiT on IIh" I'lindi'iisiT. I hiil. Sl'KAM (iKNICItATOUH. I.mta'n I'aiknt. Issu'd Ai'iil IK//), lHr.5. 1. Till' |iu(('iil was for an " iiii|)i'ov('iiuiiiii|), so as to throw waliT ii|ioii pipes alivady ho.'Kiul, ami thus j^i'imrali! ill, llloilidl il'4 |it:iri< riillld Iik Nll|i|ili)>i| li\ aii\ lliiii^r lliiil will);ni' iiioiioii |o Moiiii' iiii'rliiiiiiial ronli i«iiiii'i<. 'I'liiM Willri l)i'\ till' di'li'iidtiiil did Hot mhi<, niid I'laiiiii'd tliiil lli« |iliiintiirV< |iiiti'iil. w iM for 11 roiiiliiiiiilioii, wliii'li will mil iiil'i iii)tt'd I)} ti iisi> of liHs lliaii nil ilM |ijirls. //,/,/, liy till' roiiil, llial llir |ijili'iil, was for 11 rondiiiiiiiioit, III! dial it Wii^ ll i|iii» iiii\ wliitliir llio Wllll'l lio\ WIIHHII I'sNl'lllilll rli'llll'lll of till' I'oinliiiialioii, iind lliiil llii< di'lindiiiil, roiild not i'\adi' tlic |ialriil l>\ iml imiiiir ll |tarl not iiiiiti'iiiil. /.uttii v. i-i/iiiirf,\ MS. 1,1 win, .).; iHiio, Im.iII. 'J. 'I'lii' jury found il was mil a niiil.i' I'iiil I'liil ot llif I'oiiiliimilion, iiml jiid^r- tiii'iit was for llii« |iltiiiiliir. //»/>/. SloViCM, CooKINil. IIiu'k'h I'ithnp. Unxrit Mii\i 'HUh, I Hill. I . 'riiin |iali'iil w lis for " iiii|irii\ inii'iilH in llio roiiHJ t'lii'l ion of slovi"^, fur rooK' in)f," and llic rlaini wii'i "llir r\liiidiii'/ of lilt' ovrii inidri' llii' a|iron or o|m'|| iirailli of ||ii> slovr, and in tin- roniliina« lion llii'i'i'of witli till' lliii'sconslnicli'd iih Hiii'fifu'd," lliiit is, ri'viTlirraliii); llin-N, HO I'lillcd, ami a fionl IIih', IiiIwd'h tlin front |i!ali< of tin' Htovi> and I In' IVunt |ilalo of IIm' oK'Ii. lliiil^ tlial till' invciiliiin was llic /'«»»/- hitiittioii of llio cxli'iision of iIm' oven iimli-r till' lii-arlli of tin- slovr, and llio ri'Vi-rlirratiii!^ Iliirs, wit/i. I In- fliir in front, finnicd l>y llm front, iilalcs. /iui'h V. llmnnnr,', I |5lalclif., 100, 102. — Nklhon, .1.; N. Y., I HID. .•'■% 'W"^ •-iw^^ \m>' . .w....' f'":' ••«»» OKI bio I'AUTK ri.AU PATKNTS, HTOVtSM, HTIUW-CM'TrKII. »«*• ^. '4 Vw .^, -** ^W^g Iffiu^ tiiMioi'ilic f\irii<|i>i| t)\i>ii aiiil llit> rt> ViTWcratiiij^ t\\U"*, thai U, l\w nhU' iitul iH'iitrt' tliicM, wnn olil, tilt* liriii^iiijL; into (■iiiiiirciinti will) Hiifli iilil t'oinltiiiatiiiii tli(> tliit' ill tVoiit, iiiailcit ii«-w uimI u pal- t'lilalilf coiMMiiatioM. /hnl., ■U)'\. 'J. TIk' flaiiii of Hiu'k \k tor tlh< l1iit>M tit'- Hcrilxil i't'Vt'rl»i"ralin'4 IIih-h — in fi»ml»i- iialioii with tilt' t'\tt'ii- fiil iiiui|('i)f n!j;uialiii^ tlit> lit'at ol'sliivi's aiKJ uilu'i- stnu'tiiri's lor lilt's," and tlif claim was lor tlif applifation tif tlio t-x- |taii»i\t' ami t'ontrafliiiix [lowtT ol'a int'- tallif nxl l»y tliHtTt'iil dt'^rt't's of heat, to t)jii'u aiitl flosi' a tlaiiiptT wliii-li p»v- erns tlit> ailinissit)i) ot'air into a ntovt! or otlitT Ktnii'tnrt', by wliifli a nioru ptT- ioi't t'uiilrol ovtT lilt' lit'al is olitaiiit'il tlian fan lio l»y a tlaiiipfr in a Hut' ; and also till' iiumU' tlt'scribi'tl t)f si-tlinuj flit' lioat t>t' a stt)Vt' at any rt'tpiisito tif- gri'i', by wliifli tliHiTi'iit tlt'Ljrt'ws of ex- pansion are rt'tpiisito to t)pi'n t)r close tilt' danipi'i*. J/(l. Sih/>}/, \ Miatclif l(i;i. — Nki.ih<»n, .1. ; N. V., |hh», '.'. Thf llrnt claim, "the applic,iii,,|, of tho expaiiNive aiKJ c |„,lieation of it \>\ imaiH of mechanical contrivances, which i, one tif the commonest Hiibji-i 's nf ;i patent, f/iiif,, Itll, :t. 'I'lie claim in this patent in rtt'cr. enee tt* regulating the heat of a xtuvi' by the expansive ami coiitracling pdwir of a metallic roil, is tme indcptiHliiii of any particular arrangeiiieiit or cdiii- binati'Mi )f machinery; and the in. veiilor has a right tti use any iiuiiih, old tir new, in the application nl' iIh. new prt»perly to prt)tluct' the new mihI useful result. I'ootc v. Siisfii/, •.' UlMtili!'., '2«!l, 'J(J4.— Nki.sox, J.; N. Y., |h5|. 1. This patent, on appeal to tlic Sn- prenit Court Ih-IiI lt> bt^ valid. A/My v. Fo<>f(\ 20 How., US'). — Nklsov, ,!,; Sup. Ct., 1857. STUAw-C'iTrmi. IIovey's Patent. Lsued February Uth, 1811. This patent was for an "improvoiiu'iit in str.'iw-cnlters," and tlm claim waslVr a cylinder "having any number of ariiH •aronntl it, to which ailjiistable kiiivi"; are .airixed, constructed as dcscrihcd, in combination with the roller au;aiiist which they cut, in tho manner and for the pnrpose set forth." Jleld, that tho patent was for a new >ib4.,.^i^ '^ pAimcrr.AU tatexts. m TAIU>HM' HIIKAUH. UMAII fAUKIMU. VALTMi < patent in rofcr- I lu'iii i>r II Htiivc niilniftiiii; powir nnt* iii^«'nn'iit or cniii arj. — Nklson, .!.; [in " iinprovonu'iit i\w cliiini was iVr nuinbiT lit' arms ;i(ljustilblo knivi» (1 iis ili'scribt'il, ill ic roller auaiibt manner and for ;it was for a uew ,.,iiiiliiiii»ii""< wl'''"'' **'"*' K'""^ ••nIi'?• lloiry :• NVe''!. l,;iw Jt.iir., ir»l. VVoonmiiiv, J.; Miihh., IH45. TaM-OUh' SlIKAItM. llr.lNKIi.'irH rATRMf, h^utd Frbruary 21th, I8:i9. Tlic patent wun for *'nn tin|)rov(>nn>nt ill taiiiir'n shears," iinil ibe invention claiiiicil i'(»n>*iHte|icr bow. '2t\, ibe mlililinn of a (niivrx pioliiberanee or Hwellint; on tlie riirlit Hule of llie upper ami lower bows III till till' palm of llie liaiiiJH ; ami :i(l, a ('uiirave lip on tlie left hiile of the iip- imt I">«', lbr tlie tliiiinb to rest. upon. Till) iiiiproveinent eiiableil a piMsoii to holil the sliearH witli :i lirnier ijiasp. l/ihl, lli.it the invention ilit ill a iestii;;j, point for t'le baiitlles fo ns to avoiil a Hirain upon ilu' joint ol" tlie shears, as tliat liad been tloiie in inaiiv ways. Ibit the invention eonsisls ill till' beak, by wliieli hiicIi old result is |irii(lm'('il by new nn-ans. I/t:inrir/i v. Liillnr, (I MeliOan, 340, 348. — McIiKAN, J.; Ohio, 1855. TnuKAi), Packivo, &o. Lanuuon'h I'atknt. Issued June 20th, nil. The patent was " for an iniprovoment ill preparinj^ antl paekinjjf cotton and othur threads, and floss cotton for re- tailing," and till) BpeeifK^ation set forth llio improvement as consistinij " in Ibld- iiiij thu thread and Ho.ss cotton into nkeinn or banlcN of n convenient «|unn- •ily for rel.-ulin;^', with ii Ne;ded wrapper roniid the i^itine, itnd ti liibt I eoiititinin^ the iininbei ;inil «les«Ti|>tion of tlie ar- liele." //i KOIl (SoVKUNUIW. Jl.liHo.s's I'ATKMT. I.ivud S'fiVftnliir Ulh, ISTiO. Jieiaaiu J January lu(/i, 1H04. 1. 'I'his p.itent was fof an "improved valve for ^'o\rrnors," and the object of the invention was an iinpr'iveiiient in the valve, by which ;.n increase or do- crease '•! the motion of an enginu is ell'ecied, without any diHturhanco, or as little .'IS priicticablc. //ilif, that the invention was f»■ mL *^^)>U !'«^ .-^MNh ^'/**"a :n b:-i VWnU \ l\n I'ATKNTS. vu.v>;rt, iirriMii. and TNirfihu. '^^^' -^B. in cmuirftioii \vith n ^ii\«r an iiixi'tilioii )Im I'liiiiifi'li'il iVoiii till' ^itMriiDr. 'I'Im' >\\— liii^iiUliiii); I'liiirtirli'rUtii' oi' fill* wiUf \*, lliiil llif i>|ii'iiiii^<« mIiimiM Im> |iriM|iii-i>i| ll|>iilt lilt' |>rilli'i|ili< nl' ^l:ii|ll:lliiih tl tr«illi'li>iiiii ill till' liuiliT, mill tit't'MtiiiiMMl.'ilc ilHt'ir lit liny ili'tri'i'i' tf prcHHut't' III' liiltni' lliiil ran In* tin-own ii|M»ii i». ,hitfHoii\, Cojf, MS. Lkav III', .1.; Oliiii, \mw. Vai.vkm, LiniNii, AMI 'ritin'iNti. Bioxi.ut' Pathnt. ImUfi' J/.i[' Wh, 1 12. 1. TliiH paltMit was fdr " appaiatiiH i'oi' lilliii" aiiil ri'^iiialiii^ tlio flnsin^ vf till* valvi'4 of Htfani-«>ii}{iiifH," ainl llif Hiiliji'if iiiattiT of liix ini|>i'iivi'iii(iil \mi>* llu> |iii|i|i('l valvi< ai'li'il on in tlir ii>4iial way, cotiiirrttMl with tt viiivi> Ktciii, iiml raist'il liy a liHtT. //(A/, tliat till' pali'iifiM' waM tin' llrnt iiuciitor of tlif ini|>i'oM'i| inariiiiu'iy il«-- «''i'il»«Ml in liis |)ali'iit, for « tVriliiiLX a t'lit- olV in HtiH. SifAits v. (ilmi. Mmmf. (.'<>., ,>is.— (Juii:i{, .1.; N. J., iHiiH. 'J. 'riu» Hpccitioatioii si'ls I'orih two >*(>|iarali> iiii|ii'ovoiiU'iitN, iiol claiiniMl joinfly as ono tntichim; Init iw tiistiiu't im|ti'o\ t'liii'iits of two si'vi-ral parls «>(' a known iiiacliiiu'. /f>i(f. n. Tlu' lirst <'Iaiin is not for tlu' 81'luMiH' of lrip|iiiiij valves, but. for a I'oinltination (>f ci'i'taiii tli'viccs as an ini- lirovomcnt. in tlu' inanniT of tripitinir vulvos, aiul the ooinbiimtioii un«l ar- miiKi'iiH-nt of partH hnvn nil ii-fi.r.nr,. to a |n'iiiliar norl of valvi iif |,ii|,i„.| valvi'. //»! \itlvi>< ainl 1,^,, \i'iiliiii,' llii'in from nlaiiiiniiit;, hy iiiimi, of a ifiihr /'( .ij'/VD/V, or a n><»'r\iiir .,|' tr,iltr^i>il,*^r**\\iv\jtii!,l. Tl,,. w,,i,|y^„/ U iiM'il in its |»o|iiilnr»ii-iix«. nHijK^„„„^||| for llijiilil. 'I'lhii- Im no intinialiiirt limt an I'laNlii' llniil, \\n air, i-oiilil lir iim,.i| i;,|- lhi> xaiiH' |tnr|toH»«. /A," 7. A. Kill till' ti|>|ianitiiHi(()m>rili(>.| mill,, iil'^t lllltl Mi'Conti I'luilllM IhllHt III' riiiii l>in«'il to rtVi'i't the |ini'|iiiHt< iiiliii.|,<|. Till' t«vo lliinjrs roiiNliluti! oiii> Hlh,|, invention. ///hn/ viilv's, ami Itreakiii',' ihc kIhu'Iv of llie Wfi^flil iiMi'il to I'JiiM' Midi valve l»y eiisliioMinjiC '• '••> im "^ by beiii;^ eiishioiii'il mi :iir. Silkies V. )'(H(i>i/s, :i nialiiif., ;iiil,— Nki.son, J. ; N. v., lH.'i:». H. The \vrm Jlui'ff in Sickles' |i;iliiit tiieans a Ibiiil th.'it is tant^ihle, that an be seen or hamlletl like water or nil, and with wliich a vt'ssel e.'iii lie lilli'il in pari or in whole at. the o|)tioii nt' tlic patentee. It does not einhraco air, though the Wnw Jlitnl in its j^eiuM'icami techiiieal seieiitilie. Honse inchiiii'siiii'aiii! the gast'S. IbiiLy .'<02. IVMnU I'LAU I'ATKNTH. %u \'m.\ Is I. II ii>'*. Ihiklm' r*TKMr, L^Htil S»i>hm>t-r VAIS, IHIft, A,:,fc,.,.<#.< .'■'•/''•■"I'w X'Mh, IH59. I'lii, |iniiiii «•»•< l"<* »•• "iiit|»rnvi- ,„, „, ill .'III ulVvnlvt'H or«|.'lllll-rli^'illfS ;'• ll^ll^ till wWy oI'jIii' iiiviiilinii «i«ui' Wlllt'r-t'|i»M>lH, ami tint Mill lint nl' ili«) iiiM'tiiioii i'nii«iMt< ltd ill |»rM\iiliit^iiiii| ii|i|)lv!ii^ II (jri>\i'iiiiti' t«i fill' ViiUr or \iiKi"* III" a nM-k, luliipl' •mI til till' |iiii'|Mi<«fii or I'loHi' ^riiiiiiiil!}', mill >\liilr him-ii- iii>4 or I'limiii;^ to !ii|iint !i liniih il xii|i|ily III' >Viilfr til piiHH tlii'iiii^li, iiml tliiiH iiviiiit tliii iiiii'«>Knily III' i>iii|il)iyiiit; any rUliTii i>r n'Hi'rviiir of watrr lirlwi'i'ii (III- |i!ili"'i''«' ""**' •'" po^siliilil) lit' 'viiiK I" nvor iViiiii H""!"' "''"•'■ I'''"' "' •'"' ''"• ,, .v;.x/..» V. Ii<>r,l,„, :i lllai.lii"., :.;is.— \M.M.N..I.; N. v., Ih;,«j. J, Till' iiiiprovt'tiii'iit, Imwi'ViT, iIih-h ii„l iitnil till' p!il«i»ti'»' to ihii iiiiilinii or Mutttr ilcrivi'il rriiiii tin- i-c'ii trie strap. lull it iii.i' 1)1' taki'ii IVniii liny ollirr iii„\iii'; pi'i. <•!' <•'•' «'iik'"''« iiiw'iyH cx- iliiiliiij,'! I«»**'«'vi'r, tlio iiiolidii iVoiii till' lilUii;: I'o'l. Il'til-, '••'^. ;i, Siii'li iiiili'pi'iiili'iit inotiiiii may Im> uvil t'l trip till' »alvii ui (inif ilrj-iraliK' IMiiiit, at till! iliHcri'tioii of tlii' i'ii;^iiu't'r, ur ('oii>lru('loi'. HiUL, ti'M), 4. 'I'll'' rlaiin in tlii^ rcissiici] patriit tor "iiii|i;ii;iii<; a ciK'xi.-sliiii^ iiinvrtiiriil to tW(i n'riprocatini; ralcli pici-cs, in till- opi'iatii III uf tlu! trip nii-oH' valvi'H," is lor ail I'lU'ct, or fiiiu'lioii, ami is mil li;itilit;ilili>. SicktiS V. Tlif luilU Co., •» Dliitilii'.—N'KLHON, J. ; Ct., 1801. WaTEK-ClOHKI' VaLVKS, GoVKIlXOItB FOK. BvurnoLoaEw's Patent. hmed June 'mh, 1854. 1. This patent was for " a nicthod of niiiiliiniii^ niicIi varialilf rliaiiiliiM* ami valvi'M II) llii' iiiraiiH h| iliiil, ho thai l|ii> varialili* i-lianilirr, liy tli«' ilinrliar^n of llic air 111- wali-r, or tin- ilri.Mtii^ in of air or wali-r mIioiiIiI control llin rloHiii<^ of till' vaUi', tlir valvi' liiiiiT si'lt'-rlii>.ii| liy a Hpr'MLj or its npiivali'iil. liorllml oniitn V. tSttwi/cr, MS. — I.NiiKimoi.i,, .1. ; N. v., is:. I). '2. Tlu^ olijccl of tiio . irialili' cliain- lior is lo ri'sisl ilm ai'lion of I In- spriii-^ or wt'i;jlil llial i'Iohch llio v.ilve, so llial tliii closiii';, i'lslcail of la-iiij^ smMrn, shall Ih^ j^iailiial, to allow tliu rcipiiivil How of walrr. J/nd. Watkk-Wukixs. Pabkkh'h Patkst. h^iied Ortnhtr \'Jth, IH'JD. Fatcnded (ktvber I'Mh, 1843. 1. This patiuil was for an " improve- iiii'iil in pi'icussioii a.itl roat;tion walcr- whecls." T'Ih! invi;nlion consists not only in the comhination, Imt in the ini- provoiiHint of sovcral of ihu parts of which that combination is composed. • - '>i**»i»t'»( 'W\.. *t. '4s„. , 6T» rAK'riCFI.AU TATKNTS. WATKH-\VIIIE».UI. I*>fi4^ 'i-^if^. - Z ''■■* Tlic violalioti of one of llicin is tlicrc- fiMt' ail ii'lViiiLiniu'iit. I'urkt'i' v. Ho- trorf/i, 4 .McLean, IT >. - M«'I.kan, •!.; 111., i.-^is. '.'. Tlii* «'laitn iiiti-iidi'il to hv iii;i in tills patont, is that of the wIiitI i-allrd the coinitoiiiiil vt'i'tical, |)t'i-(ti>sion, anti iTafti'>n wlu'i'l ; (lie coni'fiitrii' rvlindt'is i"nclosinj;f tlio shall, ami tlio iiiamu-r of .su|i|iortin^ thciii ; and the s|K>uts which conduct the waicr to the wlu'cl. /\ir- Atv V. >y //(.•», ."» McLean, ;">><.-- Licvvnr, J.; Ohio, IHU). ;?. Iliit it docs not einhrace the ar- ran_LCenieiit of duplication of wheels, on a hori/.ont:il rhat\, as a part of tlw iii- venli«iii of thv- pat' *ee. //'/(/., .^s, .Mt. •1. The coiueiitri yliiiders eneloHin^ the 8hat\, and the spiral conductors for leailinu: the water to the wheels, an- also within the claims of the patent. //*/(/., liO. 5. The patentee claims to have l»een the tiist to discoviT, devise, and apply to use, 1. The propulsive' eU'eot of cor- tical motion of 'vater in a reaction wheel, operatiiijjj l»y its contrifiij^al fore, .'ind so direct eil by mechanism as to operate in the appropriate direction. Pdr/cer v. //:. And 'J. The mechanical .irranru';iliuii, US»>rill It'Mllt, lll;iv ol'icii the iiiiUcriiil lu'f;uis»' il iii;i\ li,. loful wliiU w;^ |irv. llio www i;('t\tMal - lIlO |lltt|llllM\i' if. on of wiUi'i' in u rv m^ by it!< ci'iilririi- •I'U'tl liy nu'('li,uii>m vrn tliioctiKii — wan ot'i'laim, i\i\il )iiii|i- by li'Ui'vs |iuuiit. .vs of l:i\v— 1. Thiit csh'd in tlu- ii:itt';i- x\\i to const nut and ^"UH'S, wlu'tluT sllcll \ tlu'ir s|n'i'iru!iti(iii, ('for, lor |ifiMliu'iiiu', ilyinir, a« iv motive Wlu't'ls, tilt' Ct'lltlil'll- ri'volviiifj; vorl it-ally (1 iiiissini; into aii.l lo.ols in tlu' iliivctiuii Ifntf., 4-."J. nilar t'xrluMvo vii^lil ri'iu'tion whirls, liav- wlu'c'ls ari'iiiiLri'il in .)rizontiilsluit'l. Uid., V. Jruhnc, PM., ilic ly that tho |>!itiMitws invent and iipl'ly to roaction whi'i'is ar an horizontal sliati." Ils^.—Gijini!, .1. ; !*«•. Stiles, Ohio, il win It the patoiitet's were jors of such arrange- [iutiffs adiuilted tlio rAKTICUI-AU rATKNTS. 570 WIIKKI.S, IIOUIZDNTAU W0«nMN|i|N() MACIt.KK. Ilu't luid dt'iiit'il that the patent «'Iaiined Il Ik niat'liine, and the eonrt hehl fllU ^tliat the |>hiinlilV's |iatent did not cliiiin tlie dnplicalion of w heeJH on a hori/.onlal shaCl."' //'/ sh.ill, nor the spout, the ff\[v, the otiter cylinder, or the buckets (III llie wheel. W'inttrmuto. v. liafliig- ?o«, MS.— Wilson, .1.; Ohio, !s.-,o. IT). 'I'he purpose or aim is to (d)tain !iii iiu-reaso of power with u ^ivee «(nan- tily of water; and tin* soisret of the in- vention of the wheel is the vo'.lical mo- tion of the water on the wheel, which (iperates .as a eoeflicient to the reactive 'power of the water in the buektJts. Ihkl 10. The essence of the Mivention is, tlie proibieinjjf a vortical nuttion (»n a miction wheel, in the line of its motion, aiul t!io. iiivontiou t)f protbiein^ a vor- lieat nioti'.m upon a p^trcussion or im- paet waler-w'heol, is not within i!;e elaim. Ibid. Wheels, IIomzoirrAL, fob Boats. Isaacs' Patknt. Issued November 11th, 1819. 7.hc patent was for " an iinproveiuont on the horizontal circuUvr plauo or wheel," invented by the patentee Ibrlho purpose of j^aiiiinu' power by appiyiiijj; animal w cii^d'l to the propellim; ot' bo;iis on water, or to machinery on land ; but it was not stated what was the nature iif the invention upon which il was a!- let^ed to bo an iniprovt>ment, nor wheth- er patented or liul. //(/iN<; Maciiink. Mouiiis' I'atknt. Issued MiircU 1 \l/i, 1850. 1. This patent was for an "improved method of bending wood," iiiwl the im- pntvement was for workinj; the leviM'H that bent the wood, on "fixed fulerums," to prevent the wood twist iiii^ while bciiiL; b(!nt, and also in attaehiiii; clamps to the levers, which should abut aj^.'iinst till! end of lh(i wood, thus npsettinj^ tlio libre and preventiiii^ bre.'ikaL^e nn tho ontsid> It;.-' ^-^ " i( ^vt^ PATKNIKI) MMICI.KS, OK MAilllM.S. A. Htlilir or I'l'UI'lUHKIM TO I'HK, UII'Allt, KIC. I'ATKN TKh AIMUI.KS OlJ MA CIIINKS. A. Unnir or I'l HniAHKus it* i »k, mirAtH, A.> ft7rt II. riioiuris OK, IJuiiir ro si'i.i, am> i sk TiSO A, Kit. 11 r or Pi lit iiAsKHs to i;hk, IJIIVVIK, A,i'. I. ir oiu' \\:\H !i liLvIil to !i iniu'liiiic. ;»ii«l (o ill.' iiM' «>1' it. Iii> li;is a riiilil lu work i( Iiiiiisfir, or liv liis servants, or to Irasi< ij out loaiiN oiIht |tt'rsoii. A^/^ ol" it. This is exelnsively of loeal e»>u;ni/,anet>. ^^lleh property, like every other spceies of propi-rty. unisl he used and enii>yed within eaeh stale aeeordiny; to the laws ot' such slate. l/ii'inifK(iin \. \'iin In- (/(»,'^ .l«)hn, r)Sl.— Kknt, (.'h. .1.; N. Y., lSf2. ;i. The sale ol* a |>atented maehine by a sheritV, (iinU'r an execution, does not in and of itself eoiivey to the pur- ehasei any ritrht to use the inn«-hine in the manner )>oinfed out in the ])ateut- right. Thi> purchaser aets at his own peril, ^'>lllri/^ v. (iiii/J, 1 (.Jail., 487. — Stokv, J.; Mass., \SIA. ■I. To entitle a purehas(»r of a maehine to the bi«netitsol5; '; of the aet of IS:?!), he must l>e oiu' who has usi>d the inven- tion before the application lor a patent by license I'vom the inventor liimself, and not a fraudulent puroliasor, or a jMU'ch.'iser from a \vron^v;il ar«> enlilled to the iteiielit of u l'ciit>W:il of a p:itenl, :u\d such persons lia\,. ||„, right to continue to use, durimj m,,,|, evteiiNion, the machines held hy tlion, at the lim«'t)f Hueh renewal "in thnv lent of their interests," he thai inicnM in one or more maehiiu's. W'llno,! \ h'ossuin, i Ilow.. (IS'2, vlSU. — Nici.N(.\ .1. ; Sup. ("t., IH»5. (». The rij^ht to ii,w a maehiiu. to 1„ eonstrucled according to a eerl.iin (.p,.^ ilic.'ition, involves ihe right ^^ imi/:,,,, e:nise to he made, the machine llius | ,.; milted to he \iscd. W'itix/irorf/i \, c^j. //.>.', 'J Wood. A- Mill., i't'Jd. W'o.'inu 1.'. .1.; Mass., IS 17. 7. In respect lo Hoiiie patents, ij right lo make, vend, or use, in.iv li, scparatcil. Thi> eireunisl:mees, iiiitin, and words of each grant must (jcci,!, theeonstruction which is just and Icl;;!] I/tid., n'2(\. S. Where .\ o\vn(>d the riglil lo x invcnlion -\Vo(idw(U'lh's plaiiinjr iii:i chine for a certain district, aiidcii; vey«>d to |{ the authority to iixc hd, machine in that district, J/d might build and useaiKiili, instead of it, but not both at oiicliiiii. Jf>iil., r)'20, rvj7. 1). The right or license to use d;, machine during tlu> term of the p.iUiii, does not mean any i)artieular iiiinhiih then Hold, but has reference to «li;i must be considered tine niaehiiic in nun; ber at one lime. A second inacliii, may therefore be run if the liist oiu wears out, or i.s destroyed by liiv,o: is eoiistructcd erroneously, or is Jii- ■w;^ ^ A. Sroiu, .I.J K. 1, r \\w 'M'\ of ls:i,; lU' MHO «>r |1\1' |r|l illli' I'l" tlH> n'llrv\;i!, l'l\t>lil of !l KMIC^V;)!, Il juTNons li;i\(' il , 11 USt>, tluiilllj SMcl; lilies Ill-Ill liy tlicm rciu'Wiil " to iIkm \- Is," lu« llial iiilcr.s; fliiiii's. ir//.i(),( \ OHV!, »'•«;«. — Ni.:iMi\, 186 a umvliii\i' ft» Ik \t\yr to a oorlaiiiKinv lu> right /<» iiiiil:i, m lie niju'liiiii' |Ih^h> »., O'JtI. WocDlU 1,'., ) HDlllC ItJlli'llls, ill, ikI, or nsi<, iiiny In ircuniHlaiKH's, n:iiuv., i;;i':ili( liiilsl tlriii licli is just aiiil Ir;^:,; iM'd tlu' riglil to ;i! ortli's |il!Uiiii,if iii;i liiii district, mwl c. ,; luilliority to use in istriot, .//(/(/, I lull 1' as \iso Hiicl', macliiiu', llmild and use aiidllu liot, liolli at one iiiiu\ Tu'i'iiso (o use (In L< tlTin of till' I'MlCllI. ly jiartitMilar iiuuhiiii lis rt'l'iTiMicf to y\\n: oii«>ma*'Iiiii*iiniiiir,- A second iiiat'liiiii I run if ll»c liist oiio |dcstroyod l)y lii'^^ roneously, or is dis- i'AriN ri.i> Airni'i.Ks, ou maciunks, a. mi UKMII nr PIMtOMAHHRN Tt) VHt, lUrAIII. XTO. udt'tl cnlii't'ly lor want oCit'iiair. //)»'< pergonal fivo|)(v sale. /A/(/.. A'j;. (I. Iiider U l.s .if (he a.-i of I s;l(l, the ti'^c ot' such a machine m!i\ he con linacii, notwithstanding the extension (it' (lie |iitent, until it is worn out, nr (li>st resell. /A/W., e'2.S. IJ. Tiie assigiuu's and jxraniecs li.av iiiir such right to nsc, .are (hose holding ;'i:il light !>t the time of the renewal of tli(< patent. /A/7., .^:n». l;l. Their right is not, however, a mere pcVMCvil priviloge, luil a right ol' la-epcrly in and attached (o the machine iiv<(>(I. when i( is the last one used at the liiiic tlic (enii expires. /f>ii/., TiMO. 11. The machine and tlu' right at- taclu'tl to it may pass l»y nale, devise, or lew of <'xeen(ion, or assignmen( of ;(n iiisdivcnt's elVeets. /hii/., 5.'!0. 1.5. 'I'lic right to use a maehine cannot 1)1' made to dcncnd upon or lu> alVect«'tl livtlio factof'tlu' sidcofone m.'ichine or llicpmvhasc of another. VVIn an*i purchasing iiiuitlicr. ]\lf.iini V. f^tolli'j/, 4 McFii-an, •J".~McIi(f., 2V8. 17. The sale of a patented ma(diin«> ilocs not necessarily carry the right to iisc it. A 8ale by tl»e patentee gives an a7 implied right of use ; hut sueh an infer- ence does not necessarilv follow where the M.ale nl' the machine is made hy one who has no exclusive right. Iml only a licen>.e to use. /Am/., •JV.'^. IM. I'nder (he rule laid down in UV/- Knii \, /min..s<»t, !» How., I'j;i. AVavni;, .1. • Sup. ('!., IH41>. in. lint i( does not follow, when one iA' the elements of the ciuiiliination liaH iMM'uine HO much wiun as lo he inopera- tive, or has heen Itroken, that lln> ma chine no longer exists for restoration to its original use, liy the owner who has hoiight its use. Wlieii the wearing oi injury is parli.al, then repair is resto ratiiui and not reccuiHtriiction. /AA/., 'JO. Uepairing partial injuricH, whelh er they occur from uccident or wear, is only refitting u maehine for use. And it is no imn-e than tha(, though it shall he a rephicement of an essendal part of a coniliination. /A/i/., I'jii. '21. Hut if a patenled m.'ichine as a whole Hhoiild happen (o he hroken, no that itH partH could not he readjusted, or be HO much worn as to be uscIckh, a purchaser eannot m.'ike or replace it by another, but must buy n mnv one. The doing of either would b(> ii reeon- Nt ruction. Jhhf.^ I '2 1. '12. If, however, it is a part of an (U'iginal combination, essential to its use, then the right to rejtair and replaci! oo- eurs. Thiil.^ 124. 2."l. The right to replace the cutters in Wood worth's planing maoliine is n ''^tfl ■ ^ «.. . ;?^M^ v %■ i ^m i u ..■»»■:■ --yuiiii**! 578 I'ATKNTKI) AUTICLKS, OR MACIIINKS, A. 4 Hiaiir or ■■uiit'iUHKiiH ru i hk, kki'aiu, kiu 1' . f "**Ww, KM i jmrt of tho iiivt'udoii tniii^frrriMl to an as(, as tint use of tlu' macIiiiH' df- pi'iids upon llu' ri'|il;u'i'iu"iit of Hiuli ciittorH, art u niachiiio will hiMt Hi'vonil yc>ars, whereas iho ciitti'i'M must bt( n-- j>Iart'(I I'vi'iy Nixty «>r uiuoty days. 24. Aiul an assij^iu'c ;h there may not bo in it every part of its original mate- tial. Ibid., 120. 2(i. Under $^ 18 of the act of 18;U5, as •onstriied by the Supremo Court in ^yiIson v. JiosseKu, i How., 082, a li- junsee may continue to use an invention ictually in use by him at the time of an •-'xM elision, iluriiig the term of such ex- (Ciision ; but no such right exists under an extension by act of Ctmgress, unle. s e{)ecially jirovided for. JJloonicr v. Stolky, 5 jNLcLeaii, 103. — McLean, J.; (Jhio, 1850. 27. Contracts in relation to a patent- ed machine or implement are regulated by tho laws of the several states, and are subject to state jurisdiction. Wilson y. Sandford, 10 IIow., 09.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1850. 28. The right to make a machine is distinct from that of using it. — Bicknell ■v. Todd, 5 McLean, 238. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1851. 29. The right to use implies a right I to repair, but not to ciinstruct. It also implies a right to (nn'ch.ise when tin, one in u.>o is worn out or desiiuyod. Ibid., 'I'M). ao. The purchase of an impliiniiii nr nuiehine for tlu; purpose of iim> in ||„, ordinary pursuits of life, does not 1,,,. «'ome possesseil of a portion of tin- IVmii- chise or monopoly conferred by the pat- ent, derivt'd IVom and under the I'liit. ,1 States, ami w liirh is the rigli! loexdii,!,. t!very one iVoui making, using, m- vend- ing the thing patt-nted. Hlotmur \. .yr(^iicw(in, 14 IIow., 541).— Taxkv Ch. .1.; Sup. Ct., 1852. 31. Such a purchaser, in using {\\^' thing purchased, exercises no right cdii- ferred by the acts ofC'ongress, nor dins he derive title t«) it by virtue of tlu. franchise gr-mted to the patentee; wluii the machine passes into his hands, it i> lu) longer within the limits of the mo- nopoly, or under the protection of the act of Congress. //>/{/., 540. 32. If his right to it is iiifriiigol, ho must seek redress in the courts of tho state, and according to its laws, and not in the courts of tho United States, or under the acts of Congress. Tlio im- plement becomes his private proporty, not protected by tho laws of the United States, but by those of the state in which it is situated. Ibid., 540, 550. 33. Like other individual ]tropirty, it is then subject to state taxation. Ibid., 550. 34. The value of the implement or machine in the hands of a j)iiicliaMri:M' use does not depend on the time I'ur which tho e.vclusive possession is giaiii- ed to the patentee, nor upon the exelii- sion of others from its use. He does not look to the duration of tho exeiii- sive privilege, but to the usofiiliie.ss of the thing he buys, and the ailvautagefl rATLNTEl) AUTICLKS, Oil MACHINES, A. 679 HKIIIT or I'lIltCIIAHKM TO UM, MPAIR, KW. nu-t. It nliio ISO wlu'ii tlio t>r «K'HtroyiMl. iiii|iK'ii)('i\t (ir of UM' in till' nils of tho mo- rot*'(ition of lliu is infrin;^oil, he ic courts of the ts liiWH, luul not litod Stiitos, or j;ross. Tho iiii- rivuto jtroporly, vs of the Uiihc'ti 10 Htatoiiiwliicb H), 550. iilual proptTty, Htato taxation. c imidcini'Mt it ' a purchaser for Ion tlu' lime fill" l^scssion is irraut- npon the exehi- 1180. n« tloesi Ion of the exchi- lie iisofuhiess of the ailvautugea he will tlcrivo iVoni its nso, Ifn'd., SoO. H5. Vnt enjoyment. Ibid., 300. .MM. ruder tho pn)visionH »f ^ in of the act of 18:atent ho for !i process, and a machino to hit used in sindi process — or for a proci'ss :ilone — or for a machine alone, and whether tint identical machinery in use hy such pi patent, A had a right to use the patented itivention for the manufacture of certain articles, and continued, during an extension of tho patent granted under J^ IH (d'tlic act of IHiiO, the use of the invention to the ex- tent he was entitled at the time the orig- inal expired, /fuld, that A had tho right to continue such use during the extended patent as against 15, an assignee of tho original patentee, fhitf., 407. 40. The language of g 1 8 of the act of iHltti, as to the rights of assignees .and grantees of an original patent, under an extended term thereof, is hroad enough to cover and protect, and was intended to cover and protect, the right to use the patented invention during the ex- tension, whether such right arose from a direct assignment or grant (from the patentee) of a limited or unlimited right to use, or from tho purchase of the ma- chine. Ihid., 497. 41. The sale of a machine, .and the right to use a patented article with it, imports a license to use the article j/at- ented : aiul such license is not within tlie provisions of § 1 1 of the act of 1 830, ■.iv^'N*?;! ''^/ ' ""5V ^Ui ^Lm^kmA^^t "S**— * *'^tr'k^> ij,?!} «■' ^^^iia^'i fido TATKNTEI) AKTK LKS, OH iMACIIINKS, U. ■:^i'^y '** ^ r 'rCr ■*»«. u t'HOIMi'lS (IK, HIOIIT TO IILL AND UM. wliioli ictiiiiif !iu :i.s,Mi^Miiu>nl or j^nuit «<) 1(0 ill writiii;;. Huhh v, Putin y, 11 Mo. I,a\v Kop., (IH7.— .1.; N. II., IH.-)H. ■1'-'. When a palcnliMl mafliiiic lij^lil- t'lilP' passes to tilt' liaiiils of a imrcli.'isci- iVo.ri tlu' patfiitfi', or any lu'rsoii aii- tlioi'i/,c(l to fonv(-y it, such iiiacliiiii' in no loii^t'i' witiiiii tilt' monopoly, or iiii- iUt the peculiar protection granted to patented rights: it is no lon;j;er pm- tectetl l)y tlio laWM of the Ignited States, Init liy the laws of the stati> in which it is situated. C/ioJ'ir v. lioxton /liK.Co,, 'JJ How., 'JLi;i.— Clu-koiu), J. ; Sup. (,'(,., ls.5i). •t;t. l^y :v valid sale and i»urohas(', the jialcnted !na<"liine liecoinc.s the private individu.al property •>!' the purchaser, and it is no lon<;er jiroti'oted hy the laws of the United States, hut hy the laws of the state in which it is sitnatc*!. 44. The perHon actpiirinjjf title may continue to use the machine until worn out, or may rep.iir it, or improve it, in the same manner as if dealim^ with j>roperty of any other kind. J f>l(f., 2'J.'l. 45. The fact that certain machines were a j>atentcd article cannot aflect a contract of insurance .lujainst loss by fire, to measure the dama machine, upon wliich /I'l/ilioi/er V. JJc Vuniitf, 10 B. Pkoducts of, Right to sell and USB. 1. A contract to buy all the product of a patented machine, during a certain j>eriod, does not render the purchaser liable to an action of infringement for the iisi made. Whe.lt., ;»(ll. — WahIIIN(1To.N, J.; Sill Ct., ihj:.. '2. Ollierwise, if such contnicl is (mlv a colorable purchase of the proilnct^ but is ill re;ility a hiring; of the iiiacliiiic. /A/(/., ;i(tl. .'I. Articles manufactured underapni. ei.t may be sold at any and every plate, i»y any one who hsis ]>iircliaseil furspcf. Illation or otherwise. The patent j.iw protects the thiiifj; palentetl ami nut ijn' prothicts. liiiydw /Iroirn, .'t .Mcbcm •jm>.— M( I.KAN, .1.; Ohio, lH4;i. 4. The rijjht of an assiHr|i,.(. ,,f a |,;i(. out ri.Ljhl, for a particiil.ar di>tric|, is iiui, infriii;,'ed upon hy the sale within mkI, tlistrict, of the proiluct of the kuw pateiit-riixht, manufactured by a party lioltlinj; an interest in the same piilciit ill :motlier district. Iftiii., 2i)(i. 5. Whether, if the manufacturer in the second district was actually eiij^'aijcd in selliiifT hucIi articles within tlie (lis. trict held by the other, it would not Im' a violation of the rit^ht, of such otlior person ; tjuery. If/id., 206. 0. The exclusive grant in a p.ateiit is the construction and use of the tliiiii,' p.atented. The patent law i)rote(ts tlio thing patented, and not tlie product. Iftid., 2i)7. 7. The sale of a thing nianufaduroil by a patented machine, is no violation of the exclusive right to use, construct, or sell, the machine itself. The product cannot be reached except in the liands of some one in some manner eoniit'cted with the use of the patented niacliiiic. Hoyd v. McAlpine, 3 McLean, 429.— McLkax, J. ; Ohio, 1844. 8. But if the sale of the product is I)y some one connected Avith the illojral use of the machine, he is responsible in PATKNTKl) AliTULKS, oil MACllINKS, IJ. in PRonuoTS or, Motrr to siti. ami> vul (l:iiii:ii;i>S jiikI tilt' coiii-l will rcslriiin him iVoin st'lliiin tlio proiluct. I hid,, 4:, if the (•(•mt li;ut' jiiris(liftii>ii nf the ]h'I'S(>ii, tlioiii^h till' use of tli«> iiiachinc is Itcyoml the jiiriHiliclioii dC I he fourt. /A/'*/., IMO. 10. All !issij,'iiiiiciit of nil rxclitsivc ijirlit lo iiiakt', use, uidI vend to nihcrs it |i:it«>iitt', within a ccrlaiii li'iritory only, docs not |>roliihit tlii> as- ((i"iiot' iVoiii Ntllinj; t'lscwIiiTc, out of tlic saiti territory, tlio jiroiliicts of such inaihiiii's. Si)in>Hi>ii \. IT//."'*'//, Hlow., ;i|,__X,.;|,S(>N, J.; Sup. Ct., 1845. 11. 'I'lu' rt'striclion in the assi<;min'iit iiiiplit's solely to the iisiiiu; oft lie maehine iukI is no l-esti'i<'tion as to plaee, of the Kile of the proiliu't. //>/ioti./,\ West. Law Jour., 14 1. — Tucits, J.; N. v., 1H45. l;t. The salo of an article, if the pro- duct of an invention, is not a "Hale of the invention," within the incanintif of i^ 7 of the act of 1H;{!). A sale within that section, must he a sale of the invention, or patented article. IJiit where a patent was for a (festV/w, an ornamental dcsij^n for fiii;ured silk huttoiis — and such de- tiiirn was worked on the face of thehiit- ton, whether a sale of the hutton would not he a sale of the ifciij/ii, the thiii!^ |)iiteiited. Booth v. Odrelli/, 1 IJlatclif , HoO.— Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1H47. 14. An action of infringement cannot be maintained against a mere purehaser of articles, manufactured in violation of a ])atcnt, after they have been man- ufiiL'tured, unless he is couecrned in the niafiiifaetiire. Iliinrh. iii-Sto,'k Tur. Tf). v. .hii-ohs, J lUatchf, 70, 71. — r.KiTs, J.; N. v., lHi7. l.'i. Where A and W agreed witli I', to purchase of the latter, all of a certain article, lead pipe, which he sjioiild iiiaki>, A and 15 agreeing to furnish the lead, and p!iy (' a given price for inaiiiif ictu- riiig, and (' nseili- ty for the use of the invention, then they would be liable. Aitling ami assist- ing a jierson in carrying on such a busi- ness, and in operating the machineiy, will implicate the parties so engaged, /hid. 17. Where a li<'ense to run a planing machine contained a condition that the licensees should not sell dressed lumber out, of the limits of the territory as- signed, nor dress lumber for other per- sons to bo carried out of such terri- tory, and sold as an .article of merchan- dise, /fcld, the true meaning of the condition was, that under no (Circum- stances, could the planed article, with the privity or consent of the licensees, be sold out of their territory, or be sold within such territory to bo carried out and resold, and that such use would bo enjoined as in violation of the license. Wilson V. Sherman, 1 lilatchf, 539, 540.— Ni.:i.soy, J. ; N. Y., 1850. ] H. Where a lit-ensc to nse a patented machine contained a clause restricting '<^^ '^ki i-"!** !« tt«»"l,nl - ' -■'' V- 1 . '\fM: 1«S*!l ;i.^i \' 682 rATKNTKI) Ainu LKS, ()U MACIIINKS, 11. pRoiiitm or, Movr to mux amu vu. r\ I* llin Hulo of tlu) product, I'xci'pt in tlir ttrritory williin wliiili hiicIi iimchiiu' cniiM l)M tiscil, Ixit lliit actual n^^rcc- iiiciil wan, tliiit (lie licic was to liavt* tlio ri,L;lit to voiid the )it'o(liictrt without aii\ ii'fltric^tioii us to place; /A/'/, tluil a court of equity would refoiui the con- tract to niak«» it as the; particH (uider- Mtood it nt tho tiinu it was made; Init if, in tho mean time, the ri<;litH o\' /lomt fiif) purchasers intervened, whicii miijht he prejudiced, then tlio contract coidd not he reformed. Woo(fw<>r(h v. (Utok, '2 IMatchf., 154, 150.— Nkt,son, J.; N. Y., IS50. 1!). The sale or use of tlie product of a patented maeliine, \h no violation of tlie t'xchisivo right to use, construct, or pell tho machine itself. Gooihjvur v. The ItxHroiKh, 2 W:ill., Jr., 302.— GuiKit, J.; N. J., lH5:f. 20. VVhero a known manufacture or product is in the market, purchasers are not bound to impiire whether it Avas made on a patentecl tn:ichiue, or by a patented process. I/iid., ;102. 21. IJut if a j)atentee be the inventor or discoverer of a new mantifacture or composition of matter, not known or used by others l)efore his discovery thereof, Ins franchise or solo right to use, and vend to others to bo used, is tho new composition or substance itself The product and the process constitute one discovery, the exclusive right to vend •which is secured to the inventor or dis- coverer. Ifnd, 302, S03. 22. The purchaser of the product of a patented process, may use such prod- xict for any purpose he may see fit ; and cannot be compelled to use it in subservi- ence to any arrangement made between tho patentee and any of his licensees. He may use it for his own purposes, without inquiring for or regarding any private airre«'!nent l»etween Iic( iiMcvittift to compete with one another. 'J'/n ]\'ii»hiiiij Mile/line Co. v. /'.'i(i-/i'^ ;i Wall., Jr. -(tiiiioit, J.; I'a., ISOI. 211. And every person who purcliuKc-, the right to use a patented machine (ir process, may sell the manufactini' nr product to whom they jtK-ase, wiilioiii intpiiring the purpose of the iMirchascr or imposing any condition on him, hh to how he shall use it, mdess he liindo himself by covenants to restrict Midi right. Ih'tf. 24. A patentee, (toodyear, sold tlic plaintiiVs the exclusive right to use liis vulcani/«'d rubber in its application (d, and in combination with all wrin^ini,', washing, and starching machines. l\v hail previously sold a like right to the IJoston Ib'lting ('o., for "hose, pijn', and tubes." The defencbints pnrcliiiMil india-rubber tubing of the IJoston I'xli. ing Co,, and used it to make wringers. //if(/, that the defendants had tlu'ri<,'Iit to apply such article, purchased by tlnni, tonuvking rollers tor wringing macliiiics without infringing the rights of tlio plaintiffs, andth.it the arrangements of the plaintiffs to create a monopoly could not ;iflect defendants' rights to do as they pleased with their own property. Ibid. 25. A patentee may hold a close mo- nopoly of his right, or he may grant out his cjitire right. But he cannot divide his right into parts, and grant to one man the right to use it in its connection with or application to one thing, .ind to another in connection with a dillercnt thing, to such an extent as that pur- c/iasirs from any of these j)crsons may not use the fabric purchased exactly as they like and if they please, in violation of what the patentee has supposed Avcre rights not granted by him. Jl/id. PENALTIES, A. C83 lold a close mo- t-NriHIl mi OOPTMOItT I.AW& •26. All nKn'oriH'nl hctwt'i'H lioenHfOJ*, tlint otiu hIiiiII tnaki> n ffrtiuii artif|«>, mill tlio •>llior miotlu'r iiilicU', >,'1vch iicitlu'r 11 rij^lit t(» ail iiitcrtl'rt'iicf of cliaiit'iT}'. to ooiniK'! n |iiircliiiMfi' trom tlifiii to UHo thfl artiolu luiiclmsnl for nil V I"""* •''"''"■ "^0 or |iiiri»os(' ; mnl if •uiv lovciiiiiits arc iiiailc Ix'twi'i'ii the piiUntcc aixl Ills lii'ciist'i's, tlio jiuldic are not coinpcllcMl to iiotu-e or ro^^anl tliuin, or tho rifjflit coiiftMn'tl or rost'rvutl by tlit'in. Ibid. rKN\M;nKS, and actions for. A. rrSDKK TUB (!OPTniOIIT IjAWB C8:i II. Undeu tub 1'atent Laws 684 \, Undeu the CopvuKiUT Laws. 1. Wliore a copyripjlit of a work liad iH'oii taken out in this country, and tlic ckfciidants had imported a number of copies of the same work j)iil»li>:lied in En<,'land, and sold the same, Jfdd, that the penalty of fifty cents Wiis incurred for every sheet contained in the wliole niiml)er of volumes found to have been in the defendant's possession, or which tl"'y had imported for sale, or sold, or licUl for sale. Dwight v. Appletons, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 198.— Thompson, J.; N.Y., 1843. 2. The penalty of infringement is fixed by law. If the jury tind there has heen an infringement, they must asccr- ain the number of sheets proved to lave been sold, or offered for salo (not Jie number printed), and return a ver- dict for one dollar for each sheet so sold or offered to be sold. Millett v. Snow- den, 1 "West. Law Jom-., 240. — Beits, J.; N. Y., 1843. 3. A defendant is not liable to the penalty under g 7 of thn net of 1831, iiiileMH ho was guilty of the infraction of the copyright within two years bcforo actinii was broiiglil. litul v. ('iini»i, H Law Kep.,412.— Tankv, fh.J.; .Md., lH4.'i. 4. Hut though the plates of a piooo of 11111x1(5 were engraved more than two years before, yet every printing for Male would bo n new infraction of the right, and if such printing was within two years before nuit brought, the defeiitl- ant is liable. //enal laws. Ibid., 150 ^"'?f>^; .i*^\ <*w iUl|^||> ',WI;.| fc- 'i^^is^nj'i 'iSf, 1- AM iM:\Ai/nr,8, ii. I* I l<» fcfj II. X'tuUr ^ i\ of llio .i.pyii^lit lul of I H.I I, till' |ifiiiill) »»r WWy I'ciilH on (■licit nIu'i'I (wlii-tlii'i- |ii'iiili>(| or IxMiij.; ]iriiili<lii'(MfM Hloll of till* tlct't'lliluilt, illlil i|oi>s not clll- linifc I'Vi'ry Nlicct which I he iiiliinl has |Mi)iliHh('ti or |iriiriirt'il In he piil)- liNlu'il. liih-kiii* \\ iilil,", flow., ^II. — M«I,i:an, .1.; Sup. Cl., |n|h. I'J. A |ii>ii:il ^latiili' iiiiiHt hf foiii>.lru«'{ U of I ho !ii'l of iH.ll, iH not inriiricil hj- priiiliii;^ milt piiiihshiiij^ no ihiu'Ii of it hook iiH to niiioiiiii to ail iiil'i iii^'ciiiciit of it« ropvrij^lit. /iiij/ii'n \. J, null, \'> -Mo. I. aw l!tp.,;il(). I'l uri.s,,!.; Mumh., I I. Coiiiti't'ss iliil not iiilt'inl to inllict tlicMo pi'imltit'H upon ilui unlawful print- iiii' or puhlifutioii of Iohs tliuii an cutiro work. //*/(/., .'M. I.*). 'riii.H (picslioii WHS not (U'ciilcil in 1infk-u» V. (,'i>itlif, I llow,, 7l»H, thoiiirh r.'iisi'd in (ho »'uurt hrlow, and rulcil />ro j'onnti, tliure. Jfn'd., ;M'J. II. U.NUKU laii: I'xVriCNT Law.s. 1. Wlion an action is liroujxht on a penal statute, an the statute is the only founiation of the action, the deelaralion must aver that the act complained of was done contrary to tin* statute. J'ar- hcr V. Ifdwortfi, 4 Mcrican, y7;K— Mc- Lkan, .1.; III., iHtH. 2. I'nder 5^ G of the act of IS4'2, the assii^nees of an interest in a patent- right are no more liable to Mie penalty ]irescril»ed by the act for si'lling p.'it- cnted articles not h;iving the date of the patent stam})od on them, than any other persons, unless it appearetl that the articles were manufactured by them or with llieir oonnivunee. /'.///,,,,. V. ,!//(», MS. IIki-ih, ,1.; N. V., |m,,| :i. It JM not the Nclliiiij of the iirtii'|i>M NO iiiiNtainped that iiiakeM Ihein liullf tn the peiiiilly, but llie oinitliti^ to pm t|„, Ntainpoii. If the urlieles were iiiaiiiiliu'. lured befoi't> roiiiin^ to the p■lXH|.^^il||, of the iiMiiignees, or veiidoi-N, thfv ari> Dot boiiiul to put on the Ntamp. /A/,/, J. The penalty attaches for each j,,.!, .'trale article sold, and not for all xi>|,| ;,t each lime in I hc< aggregate. Ihi,l. ft. The tinit y«'»rs' limilitlion in wh;,.), to bring Niiits for peiwillies, prescriln'.l in the criincH ad of I VIM), is rcpcaliMJ by implication by J} (of the act of |s;ii)^ which eiiactH (hat suits for pcnalliiM nr fitrfcitnres may be brought at fiiiy tinm williiii Jin' years fruiii the time ulun the same acciiictl. Stiitiptin// v. /'o//./ 2 Curt., r.();i, r.()(.— CuiiTIH, J.; Mass,, I H',r,. (I. ^ r, of the act of IHI • aiiili„f. i/.cH the indict ion of a peiiall of just one hiiiKlred dollars for the oll,iin> ,|,. scribed therein, and no more. /A/*/., .^(Ml, 7. The penalties pn'scribed by the p.it. eiil acts may be recovereil in an .'utidii of debt. lhiil.,Um. H. It is necessary (hat each arliclt> should be stamped with the day of tiic month as well us (he ye;ir, but il' this is tlone it is snflicii it, even if llu! word "patented" is abbreviated. Ilnw. liif V. liityhy, .MS.— JJK-ns, J.; N. Y., 18.^)5. ». To entitle the plaintilV to recover, he must allege and prove facts sliowiiij,' tluit lie has a title to recover, and tlio proof must corres|)ond with the allega- tions. Where the declaration diargoil the defemhmt with having sold an "ex- tension pen holder," while the juoof showed the patent to bo for an "iai- n.KAIHNti, A. 6SS mot'. I'tilnuf \ N. Y., IM.M. iti' tilt' lltiirli'H lIliMII liul'li' til liii>4 to I'lit llii> wi'i'i' iiiaiinriti'- lilt' |HmMt"«Kili|| iliifH, llicy ail' Hllllll|). //>/>/. M I'of tiull fM), in I't'iit'alnl lilt* lift of Ih:io, fur |icmilliis or kIiI at any tiiiio Ihf tiiiit' wlicii npHoii V. /'«>/*(l Ity tlic |iat- (I ill an actinii at t'acli aiticlt" llio (lay of ilit> car, but if this even if lliu ri'vialt'tl. /Anr- •IS, .1.; N. v., tiiV to rocovor, luctHHliowiii;,' ccoV'tT, and tlic rtitli tlir allt'i,':!- iration i-liavj^a'd i}ir Hold an " ex« hilc! tlu! jinxtf (0 for an "im- DHtXAH^TIitN: WHAT T» HKr roltril. IHOVI inir. //>/•/. iiii'iil ill |M'(/7»/, ilxit t''*' pliiiiiiiir I'iMilil nut ri*- or, tlii< hIiKliti'Mt viiriutioii \* latal, iiml for Hiicli viu-iaiii'«'a iioiiiiiiit will Itf ^riiiit- i»i|. /A/i/., t»7. :t. It in not n ^rtiiiinl for it iioiiMiiit in tin lu-tion ftir violiitiii); w |tiitiil in )| n of l|„i ai't I't l^('-\ ti»' illllxili;^ lilt' Wol'il to an iin|iati'nli'il arlirif, \* in- tl lia\ till' lilt lurri'i I a^ to ail artirli'H inaili' am lii|: iiuriK r Hiirll word alliM'il, with a ^iiilly i'oiii|dain<'il of to lit> "iii;aiii>«l llir form iiikI llii-< in not i'liaii};i'i| liy i of tlu' ^tatlltl■," Init nii'rt'ly claiins dam the itarly iiiakiii^ a|)|>lii'alion for a pat- a^l'M. r'o/«fr/iiii.i v. Culifwill^ MS. — Sl'IUiiUK, J.; MllMH., IHilO. PKKI''i:(TIN(}. AN INVKNTIOX. Sec titlu l.NVKNTU»V, 1{. PLAN OK A WOItlC. SceCoi'Yuiuur, 11. PLKADING. A. PrciAUAnoM ShTi B. Wv.KA IN Hah 5HH f . Oyeb and rimrKiiT 58!) IK ItKKKCIH IN, OIRKI* IlY VkKIUCT fi'.M) 11. DflMUUIlKK O'JU A. T>i;(i-Ai:.\Tioy. 1. In gi'iuM'.il, ii» .'ill action for tlio vio- latiim of a pati'iit, it is sunii-iciit to state ill tlio dwlanitioii, tlic siihslaiicc of tlio jTrant or siiecilicatioii to wliicli tin- ^rant Idbrs. Tryon v. White, IVl. V. C, 07. — Wasiiinuton, J.; N. J., iHl.'i. 2. 1)111 if the iloclar.'ition professes to fit forth the speeification as part of the id* form, uml llu< want of it would hu t'lirt'il Ity venliet. //»/(/., ll7. I. 'riie di'i'laration oii^hi always to mIiow a lille ill till' plaiiitilV, and thai with t'oiufiiii'iit i-erlaiiity. !l oiij^ht to state all iiialterH that are of the esseiieu of the arlimi, without whi.di the plain- till' fails to show a ri^ht in point nl' hiw to ask for the judgment of the eoiirt in his favor. O'rat/ v. ,/iinii.i, Pit, ('. ('., •IH'J. -WAslllNtiloN, .1.; Pa., IHI7. ^», If his title depends upon the per- forinaiiee id' eert.iiii nets, he inn^t allirm the performantH) of sntdi nets. I/uif., 4H'J. tl. Put if eiion^li Is slaleil to show title ill tilt; plaiiititf, and with snIlieieiiL eerlainty to enahle the eoint to ^ivu jud<{nii'iit, lint the ileelar'ition is less explicit than mi^ht have heeii rcipiired, the defect will lie irurcil liy verdict. /A/7., \H'2. 7. Where the ileclaration tlcsij^tiatcs the patent Ity the lernis nsisl in the p.-it- eiit, it is not ni^ccssary th;il the speeifi- eation should Ite set out in the declara- tion. It is a matter of evidence to ho nsi'il at tlio trial, iuid the ilefeiidant may have it placed on the record l»y askinj^ oyer of it. //>/(/., tH'J, tH;t. K. The declaration must show u titio in the plaintilf; hut if it aver tli.'it tho j^rant or patent, in the form prescriheil Ity law, was issued, this shows the very title on which tliu action is fonndod. S§! w ^ '*<^iii, ' Wi« !bu 11 )80 rr.i:Ai)!\<;, a. MWLA«ATMW( WHAT 10 WKf nmiU, ^ [W^ *W»„i \' ^', C'lttiiifj V. M>y,r0, I Wii^li., 221.-- \V.\HlllN..|i»\, .1.; I'll., |S|N. 0. Il U tiui iii'*-i>N«ar} to iivt>r llint tlu< |iri'liiiiitiiiry iilt>|M, hiu'Ii nn |tri>««>iitiiti<)ii «i|' |M>tiliiMl, tti'., Wltt'it lakl'll, Milllnlll >vliii-li II \iiliil ^niiit nxilil not ixHiic, !)«>• fiitiMu tltt> coiii-t will |iri>Mitiiii> ill liixornr tlio K>'""'« t'"'t cvitry tliiti;x ^viim li^jlitl}' (Itiiiu wliirli till* law rri|iiii'«'il, i.i oi-iIit to iiutliori/.u till) iiiNuiii;{ of ili(> ^niiii. \0. Tlio tlccluritlioii iimsi, liowiivi-r, nll<*};t> not only tliiit n ptilfiit wiih nmiU> out ill iliii> t'oriii of law, liy wliicli ilirri' UiiM ^i'iiiiIdI to till' |il:iitititrcn'taiii privi- h'^X^'^'t '•"' liMlxt iilsK iiIIih;(> 11 ifrltrifif of ■iicli piiliMil to till' |il!iiiititr, iiikI tliat llii* piiti'iit \v:iH iitti'Mtnl l)y tlic |irt'Ni(l('iit, or |iro|ii'r olllccr, as niu'Ii atii'xlatioii i«t iirc- CMsary to tlu' form ami \aliilily of ilu« )>at«>tit, atitt raiiiiot bo iinplicil from the nllf;^atioii thai n patfiit wiim madi' out. Till' want of tlu'so iilli'^atioiiH ix i-atiMC lor ^'('iitral di'miirriT. //>/ittii wtra reef»i'ili>d, nml n str. diet \* kUcii in iHvnr of the plnuitifT, ili, di'ffi't will bi' cured by verdici //„/. »t>H V. VinnftfhU, I Sniiin., ii'jtj.— ..Hfn^ .F.; .Me., IM.II. U, A declnrntlon In n »tniiiiiri,i „|' fluid, whii'h ill law j{ivei« the |,|„i„ti|y a right to recover. It iit nialfri.ijlv tU fiM'livu if, to lay the foiindalinii of n r,,. covery, the proof nniNt go fiirili.T ih,.,,, the alli'gatioiiN it oiilaiiis. Sl J/ Ohio, IH31>. I.**. In an acli«>n of Infringeincut nf i patent, the deilaratiou ||lu^l avtr thi! the plaintitf had obtained u pati'iit, h that till) ex<"lu«*ive right was voicd in him. /A/*/., 43. 1(1, Where the declaration xtiiti-dtiim the plaiiilitf dainieil ii p,!»«'nl, aiul tlin the defendant possessed and etijiiM,! the right, //*//«/., t:i. I". Ibil in such case after V(h|i,t,;i motion in arrest of judgment will M>t be granted, as the court will pri'Mink' that till' fai'ts showing the right wdo proved at the trial. //>/(/., 43. |H. The cleclaration in nn aitiim for the infringement of a patent iiei'd not 80t out the specification. I*itt* v, ]\7n'tin(i)i, 2 Story, 014. — Srouv, J.; Me., 1M43. 11). It would be more furinal tonniux a copy of the letters patent ami s|i('(iti- cation to the declaration, and to nlir thereto in the declaration, but iIich' is no substantial objection to a prajlrt. Ibid., 014. 20. In an action at law for an iiifiiiittc ment of a patent for an improvi'iiicni, the decl.iration must set out in what the improvement of the patentee coiisist^- this being an essential f)art of the plniii tiff's case — or else it will be doniunable ri.KADlNU, A, MT <>r,,/. mil., H'Jrt,— Hriiuv, U n NtiUi'iiit'iit <.|' Hivi'it tlif |tliiititirt' It U timlcri.illy .If. riiiiinliiliiiii III' ti r,. \h\ j»i> riiiiiiiT iiiiui illl\in»». Stfliilry\, 4l.-M.I.KAN,J.; I' iiilViiigi-iiit'iit lit ,t on iiiiiMt nv«iit, (ir ■ij,'hl wftH vi'ntwl ill olaralioijstMti'ilthut I II {latent, mill that OHStMl nilll «'lljn\i'\nv\f\- alioii, uiul to 111. r fratioii, l»iil tlicrc in •tioii to a profirt. law tor an iiilViiij,'e Ir an iin|trovi'iiH'iit, Hft out ill what the J patentee consists- tal part of llu' i«la'm 1 will bo doimirrable VKiAUkmrn \ WHAT 10 mt nnu. Ifitw wii«, lioW(>vcr, (fivt'n to ninoiiil. /V/c ■«••'• V. iro«»»/»'M, ;i .Mi'I.«'i»ii, "^41).— M.I.MN. J.; Ohin, |M»:l. 2\. U t\ tlfi'lai-iitiiiM in n paloiit inil ,|„»M« lliAt till' |)l:uiiliir liuM an int«>i'i>Ht in only II |»"i"^ "*' '* I"kl«'»»l. "I* '» II*'"'"*'' to iKC, in ll"' iiii»imt'>''"in' i>l' II pnrticiilar lilii'l of I "»''S ''»*' invi'iilinii ilcMrrilicd li, ii, it in bail '»■ itM tur«>, and Jmli^nK'nl y,\\\ lit' ri'iDliTixl for t)ii> ili'ffiKlant. Siitft'on V. />.///, '2 IMal«'lit'., •.'.».— Nur.- io<, lUns, J.I.; N. v., IHHI. •>>. TIh' ilrclaratioii fir an infiin^^i'- iiiiiit of a patonl m-od not aviT tli»' ipt'i'itli' tiiiif of tiio invftition. It nct'd mitv !•• lo'f'""'' •'"' appliiMlinti fur a pat- ent, It i)* wliolly iiiiniatfrial as to tlu' iiliMiling^, whi'tlu'r the invention was I.iiijf aiili'i'udi'iit to till' iippliration or (lirictly pr«'o«'di'd it. Witihr v. J/«'- ('„mli'k^ •-' Illatrlif, :i;». — IIkiis, .1.; N. v., I'^Ki. •j;l. Tlic lU'rIaration nt'od not s«'l forth mivi'f till" steps taken in nt'eiirinjj the pati'iit. Tlio j^raiit of the piitint it>«'lf is (tiitlli'it'nl i'\ ideiiee that all the preliiii- iiiarj' steps rocpiirod by law wore prop- erly taken. It is snflieient to set fm'tli the |i.it('iit in substance, fhht., ;t t. '.'4. The (leelaratioii must temier an issue iipiiii tho novelty and utility of till' (lisi'ovory jiatoiitod ; but it need not aviT till! regularity of tlio preliiniiiary proiriMliiij^s in its isHiie. Th!,l., ;ir». 26. A tleclaratioii which avers tlie jiati'iil and specitication to bo " in laii- j,'imi;i' of tho import and to the etfect I'ollowinjj," .nnd which sets forth tho lot- tiTs iiateiit accordinjj; to their words and flames, is siifllcient ; ami it is not a gi)0(l I'xcL'ption that tho word " import" is used instead of " tenor," oven if tho words are not identical in Hi,:;nification, because the language is that of recital, and uot of grant. Ibid., 35. 'ii\. A ri* produeed," i* eipiivaleiit \n fn-ojVrt in the nio'it formal and ample termi. Ifiii/.^ 3.^. 87. A reiternlioM of infringement"! of n patent, like a repetition nf torts of any other kind, may !>(• hiu><1 tor and lecoinpenNed in one action. A deetai'M- tlon \n not bad or demurrable, for dii* plieity, beeailMe it NetM forth ditt'erent and tlislinct intVinifements. Pn',/., ;i(». 'JH, A decl.iratioii which coinnienceit in rtiMA and coneliideN in the form of an action of debt by demaii defendant, and alVonls the di'fendant the opportunity to inter- poso the defeiici'H allowed by law, tho court will not eiicoiirago objections merely critical, and will seek, even on special demurrer, to sustain pleadingH substantially siitllciont. //>/«/., 37. :I0. In an action for an infringement of a patent bearing d.ate tlit' n)th of October, IH'JO, and which has been ex- tended, tho declaration averred '"that before tho expiration of the term for which tho original p.-iteiil was granted, to wit, the 4lh of October, 1H43, such pat"nt was in duo form of law extondod for tho term of 80von ycarH from and after tho 19th of October, 1843." On di'iiiurror that tho mode of extension should bo set out at l.'irge, JJdrf, that tho general avorniont was suHiciont. Plulpa V. (^oitistock, 4 IMcLoan, 353.-— M< Lkav, .r.; Iiid., 184S. 31. If tho declaration aver that the Jefondunt has made the thing ^' In iuu- •It ..... '.'A. (I ' ^*U 'II .-»•■ . •— <.4t»ir( m 58B I'l.KAhlMJ, 15. *t*^i; J <;.. »l: i>koi.%h.vtion; wiuv to lllit voutii. i-ucaii ih hih. tutiKii of tlio |i|;uiitifV'.s pati'iil," it uill| inoof iiuist ciirroHiKuitl with tlu' alKcv lui Hiitthit'iit to maiiiliiiii llu' aitioii. Vurkyr v. //itiet>rt/i, » MrLouii, iiTl, yV'.l. .M» l,i.\N, J.; III., lstf<. ;t'.'. Ill uii at-tioii lui- (iaiiiai^t's t'oi- an iutViiiu[fiiioiit i>t'a patt^iit, it is luit lutoo^^- Nai'\ lliat llu' tU't-laratioii slioiiM Hct t'ui tli witiunil Mtaiii|iiiig on it tlio ilati^ ot i|,. I'Uloiit, whilo tlm proof show t-d tlu' pai »'i»t to \h^ t'or ail *' iniproNtMiiviit m i,,.,,, till" art riim|ilaiiu'il ot'a-< t-Kiitiai N lo (lif aiitl (ii-nril oaiti's," //(A/, ih^t tin- iilnii, tioiiH til" tlui ilt'rlaralioii. \Vlu«it) j], (U''-laiation i-liuri,'t«»l llio lU'tVii.luut wii|, having sold ail " oxtriis'oii |>i'ii-lu>M,.i " staluti'. This is (>nly iui»-.>an w lion tlu' ai'tioii is liroiii;lit on a j>»'iial statutf. ;i;t. WlnTi' an iniyiiuil pati-nt ami llu' iin|>roMiiu'iit on it aro niiilcd in llu- sauio iMMstMi, tlu-y rt>nstitutt' a \\ liolr, an tMitiio riij;lit, and tlioy mast !«o as sk'tit'u ;is siicli in the dt'i-laration in an artionot "an intVinijt'iiU'iit ottlu-in. ('((>•<<' V. AV«//»V/./, 4 Mfla'an, 5vJU. — lliiNTiNii- TO\, .1. ; llld., IS t!». 34. It' tlio d»>ilaiali*>ii riaims dainai^t's 111 tlu» iiit'i iiigi'nu'nt »>t'tlio oiii^inal pat I'Mt, and also st-paratt'ly lor tlu* iiitViiig«'- iiuiit ol" tlu' iiiiprovi Hunt, tlif action oainiol ln' siistaiiK'il. lt>id.., oJl>. So. Tin- lU'i-laratiou lU'i'il not si't out in w liat or liy what iiumiis tlu* di'tl'iid- aiits lia\t' iiitVingfd : it tu-kul only avor that llif di-tt-ndanl has inadf, fonstr<.i<-t- (d, and sold tlio tliiiiL, patentod. 7/.<(/., o;fO. iWS. Lt^ttors patent nro not nocessarily a part of tlu* din-laration. Smith v. A'/y, o .MoLt patiuit, .suoh l>fiiii; till! tiu-ts i>f tho caso, and rlaim- iiii^ titlo uiuUt siuli an assii;ninoiit, is not doiiiiiri;ti>U', siu-h assi^niiu-nt In-iiii; Mitlirii'ut in law. liatht'one v. Or)\ o JNhLoau, laa. — Mi'Lkan, J.; Minh., ISoO 38. In an ai-tiou qui tKKKNi'KH; (iK.NKIiVI Usi (. I. Tho rooovi'i'y of a vi'iili»i liy ji|^, |>laiiilitf in an aitiiMi for tlu- iiit'i iiiij,'. nuMit t>f a patont will not pivvnii jiiiu lVt>in Ininijing anotlu'r aotion of iutViiii;, iiu'iit foi a futiiro nsiM«f tho di'tViulHiit', inaihino: ovory t'uturo uso is an uitViii>v nu'iit. W hittt >n{»v. V. (\(tttr, I (lull., 4S4.- STt»»!Y, J.; Mass., I8l;t. '2. Whoi'o a doolaration j^ot's for tho usiT oi' a niai'hiiio diiriiii^ a liiuiti'il iv riod, a vtMiliot aiul Judj^nuut in mi aotioii is ni> bar ti» a siiliso(|Uiiit Mm for a lister diiiiiii; anotlu-r and miI.h^ ipu-nt poriinl. h'ttrle \ . Satc^/t r, i .M:is., 14.- S'iH>KY, J.; Mass., IS'J:*. ;t. If tho inattor all('<;*'d in a [.Km i^ not a bar te tho ai^tion, tho [•Iniiitills may tlonuuid I'.iul havo sul>mitti>l tho (pu'stion of law to tluM-oiirt. Oi' ilu'V may tltMiy tho faots allogoil in tlif pk;!, and tako issno thoivon, and i^o to tho jury. (Sfntnt v. lut;/tm>ni(,{> lVt.,:'15. — .Mausiiai.i, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1S32. 4. A ph'a adinittiui^ tho oxistoniv I'f a patont but ilo.iyiiig its validity, isM, as tho ploa rotors a inattor of law to the jury, lientu'tt \. .!/(r salo, uiuloi\^ V of tho act til isau, to Ito u bar to tho nil w iilt tlu' Mv\^ tlu< (U'U'inluiii with It It tlif ilatf ot ilu iH»t' sliowftl th«< jiat. i>|>iovonh'iil ill jH'i^ '/<7i/, that \\w |.l;uii r. iIaiclii/\. ^i^,J. ', N. Y., I «;>:>, m; tiKMatvi Usu:. oi' a \in\\'w\ \<\ ijio M\ t",>r tlu' iiitViiiijc. till liul |>iv\i'iii hiiii air »oti(>iu>t'int"nus,'<>- u» i)f tlu' ili't\'iuliim\ iro iisii is ail iu!'iiii>;i' V V. C'««(/-, 1 i;,ill., iliiss., is I;), iii'iitiou i;ocs tor tlio liiriii>^ ii liiiiiti'd [H' iiul>;iiu'ut ill siul. sulisi'niu'iit ai'tii'ii !Ui«>tlu. ulli'i^iul ill 11 1'K'u ij »'tioii, tlu' i'laiiiti»!'> lavo .suluuittivl tlu' llm nmrt. Or llu'v ilK'goil ill till" |>!>'.i, I'l'iiii, ivihl l;v> to tlu' tyinoiulyd rot.,'.'45, up. t't., is;!-.'. 11'^ tlu^ fxisli'Uri' I'l' «;• its valiilitv, i^l*!, lUUttlT I't'hlW to till' Martin, Mo., 401. >.., 1840. • uso or sail', uiult'i' § >, to Ito a li:ir to the iM.i: AhiNti, II., c. 580 t'IKkS IN II \U OtKH \M> rUOk'HHI'. i.hiiitirt"!' avtiou, inuHt state that it was' mort" tli!»> l^^*' >»■'*'"' l'»>t'oro tlu- applii-a lion t'i'V '» patoiit, or i't|iiivah'iit to an alamli'i»i'»>'»N '*' »'oM>titiito a har to (ho| jtitioii il" >t 'I*'''"' '"'•' '' '"* *l«'i'>iinal>l*'. llM'ts. ISiiia Mrl.iaii, I7t). .M. I.kan, ' J.; Ohio, ism. I it. .\ I'li-H in )>ar iiuist ooutain a full ' ilitWuv against tho lights »>l' tlu> plaiu- lill" that the phiiutilV lias no ri^ht to noovi'i' »>r it is hail oinUiiuirr»'r. It'llit- tnitliet'tlio ph-aH may lu> ailinittotl, aiul tho lU'lioo l>k' still niaintainahli', suoh i«K;i<* aro I'ssi'iiiially ili'l\'oti> »•. Smith \. Ely, '•> Mkli'un, S.S, SU. -Mrl.i;.vN, J,, Oliio. ISH». :. Wlit'ri', thfri't'oro, tlu' ph-as allo^tnl ibt tlu' pati'utoo was ni>t tho iiivoiitor >,l'l!u' tliiiiiX ilainu'il, ami iH"laiii othors lull' iiaiin'>l ;»^ *' ''>'">• inxi-iilors, hut .Muli I'loas iliil not alh>go a kiiowhnJsio iit'tho part ot'tho patonti-o ol" siu-li prior iini'utioii, ami that siu-h prior iii\fiitioi>. luivl Ikvii pali'iiti'il or ih-irrihi-il in skuu^ writti'ii puhliiatiou, /A A/, that suoh luoas wt'i'o ilotVotivi* and »U( tho jtat- viiti'o. //>«(/., 8(}, 87. l>. Cravingiiyor of lottovs jiatont iloos not iiiako thoin a part of a ploa. I bid., W. hi. It' a party, by his ph-ailin*;, tt-n- iliT mi iiuuiatorial issuo, tho jury must liiid tlio issue a.>t prosoiUoti, ami assoss ilamant's for tho broaoh, if any, of tho timis:; alloi^oil. It makos m> tlitVon'tioo that it it) an iininatorial issuo. Good- !/ttir V. Z'tiy, MS. — Ukikk, J.; M. J., IS30 II. A ploa (»f a ilotViiilant sottinv» up an ayit'oniont, ainl ju>>til\ iiii; umUr ilio samo, shoulil a\or tho porformauoo on tho part of tho tlotomlani t>f tho oon- ilitioiis proooiloiil pro\ iiloil thorol>\,or avt-r that tho il ■fomlaiit hilonns to tho olas.s of porsiius \vh«» aro pr»i\ iiloil t'or hy suoh aijrooiiu'nt : if it iloos not, it in uroiuiil for iloniiuri'i Ihtij v. Hiirtih /torn, MS.— TirMW, J.; l{. I., Ih:>1. i\ 0\t:il AMI TuotKUT. 1. If tho ili'olaration ilosi^^natos tho patont hy tlu» tonus u-,oil in tho p'.u^nt, it is not nooossary that tho spooi '.^'itioii shoulil ho sot out in tho iloolaraiion. That is niattor oi' ovi»lonoo to ho 'istnl at till' trial. If tho ih-foiuhnit wislus it to ho put on tho ri-ooril, ho i';iii lia\o it put thoro hy asking oyor of it. (irttt/ V. Jamen, IVt. (\(\, 4S'J, 4s;J.— Wash- iMii\>N, J,; Pa., IHIT. 2. Tho iloolaration noivl not sot out tho patont or spooilioation oitlior vorha- tini or siihstanlially. If th" ih'fonilant ilosiros its proiluv-tion, ho .'aii pray oyor of it. ( 'lit'ixi/ V. .V(/(T,v, 4 Wash., iJ'ja.— NV AsiiiNtiri>N, J. ; l*a., isis. ;t. 'Tho pi'o/*rt of lottors patont mako.H thorn, wlu'u proiluooil, a part of tho iloolaration, anil givos all tho oortainty as to tho iiivontion patontoil whioh is roipiiroil hy law. It is thi-rot'oro not good oauso of ohjootion that tho ileo- laratiim iloos not sot thom out. I'itts v. Whitman, •-' Story, lU4.- SriMtv, J.; Mo., is4;i. 4. It wouhl bi' nioro formal to uniio.x a copy of tho lottors patont ami spyoill- I'ation to tho tloolaration, but thoro is no substantial ohjoo»ii>n to a pro/ert. 7 />«./., til 4. 5. A rooital in a iloolaration that tho lottors patont, in duo form of law, are »M ^«>'( ^•^^Hw tW;» mh 500 PLKADIXO, D., E. DKrECTS, Cl'UiiU IIT VERDICT. SEHURRER. roa jury could not be presumed to h;ive found a verdict for him, unless it lia,i been proved at the trial, the oiiii.ssion to state the m.atter in express tciiiiK in the declaration is cured by the vunlitt if the general terms of the decliimti^,,' aie otherwise sufficient to conipiehcDj it. Ihid., 320. 5. After verdict, defects in suLstance in the declaration are cured if the Um joined be such as necessarily rc^jiiireii i on the trial, proof of the facts delict- ively or imperfectly stated or omittcJ' after verdict, the court will prosiinie that the facts showing the right were proved. Stanley v. Whipple, 2 JMcLeai, | 42, 43.— McLean, J.; Ohio, 1839. £. Demubreb. As to necessary substance in ing, see Pleading, A., B. 1. Where a plaintiff brought elmil qui tarn actions for penalties against itij same defendant, who demurred specii!>| ly to each declaration, and the jilaintUl joined in detriUrrer, a motion that m demurrer be argued, and that prooedj ings in the other cases be stayed, mI abide the event of the one argued, m denied. A party bringing a niultipliiil ty of suits must take the respoui>ibii!!l WN PRIXCIPLE. 501 WllKTIlKIl PA TKN TABLB ; TO WHAT KXTEKT. , of 1703, but jud'^. for jihuntitV; JLil, jureilby tho vcvd'ut, lOt hiivc bi'i'ii VLiulir- f the assif^iiiiicutliail I, as nothing would nless rccortU'tl. Thlf Suran., 320.— Stouy, alter is so cssonl'mlly >roved to cstiillbh a ,0 recovery, tliut tlw be presunieil to Iv.ive "or him, unless it 1ml the trial, the oiiiissiuii ier in express tonus in ; cured by the vuvilid, ii-nis of the dei'liiiatkn tfficient to coinprcln.'iid ict, defects in siihstimct )n are cured if the issiie as necessarily rc(iuired I oof of the facts dtftct- jctly stated or omittca; [be court will pvosuniel ibowing the right wtre ivv.irAJi>P^e,2MeLcai, , J.; Ohio, 1839. Demubreu. 3ary substance iupleaij JlNG, A., B. plaintiff brought elovt! L for penalties agmnsttli ft, who demurred specii laration, and the ylM] Inrrer, a motion that ok Irgued, and that proccti Ither cases be stayed, w V of the one argued, « Lty bringing a nuiltipfc Lt take the respousi« of meeting thetn in the usu:d way. Fer- r,lt V. .1^"///, 1 Blatchf., 152, 15:j.— lh;Trs,J.; N. Y., 1840. j. Wlicre it is alleged as cause of ,l(i!UUTcr tliat the declaration is not .,f„|,efly entitled, but the defect is not iioiiitotl out until on the argiunent, and consisted in a variance between the writ and the declaration, the court will not act upon it upon such suggestion. ]\'!l(k'r V. McCormii'k, 2 IJlatchf., 32. -Hctts, J.; N.Y., 1840. .•]. But if the objection had been prop- erly raised, the court would liavo allow- c'll nn anuMidnient of the error, under 5; ,!:> of the act op 789. (1 U. S. re- vloiisly in existence or u'^t, to sonu' new and useful piu-pose. }]7nt/H'i/\. Carter, Fessenden on Pat., 2d Ed., 139.— JoiiN- 80X, J. ; Geo., 1800. 2. A more altstract principle is inisus- ceptiljlo of ai)propriation by patent. The applicant for a p.atent must show how the principle is to be used and ap- plied to some useful purpose. IJiians v. IJaton, Pet.C. C, 341, 342.— Washing- Tox, J.; Pa., 1810. 3. A principle, in the sense of ,an ele- mentary truth or power, is not the sub- ject of a p.atent. The true legal mean- ing of the principle of a machine, with reference to the patent act, is the pecu- liar structure or constituent ])arts of such machine. Barrett v. Ihdl, 1 Mas., 470, 471.— Storv, J. ; Ma.ss., 1818. 4. The word " principles," as used in the act of Congress, does not mean merely the elementary principles of bod- ies, as earths, alkalies, «fcc. ; or of me- chanic power, as the lever, screw, wheel, &c. ; or of power obtained by water, air, fire, &c. Because scarcely any ma- chine, medicine, or utensil could be con- structed or operate without the aid of some such principles. It means not only elementary principles, but the applica- tion of them. Ilolden v. Curtis, 2 N. Ilamp., 04. — Woodbury, J. ; N. II., 1819. 5. There must be the discovery of new principles, or the employment of old ones in a new proportion, or in a A J ' I^LL'i :4^i» t«.^WM* w 502 PIIINCIPLE. 4 . i I l!! pm h I "" w, C'V WlirrtlER PATKXTABLl; TO WHAT KZTENT. new process, or to a ik'w imrposc. In tlio laiij^miLft'ofLonl IJaooii, tlierc muHt be "an iiivi'iitioii of further iiieans to endow the coiKlition and life of man with now powers or works. Ifu'd., (It. 6. The thing to be patented is not a mere elementary prineiple or intellectual diseovery, but a prineiple put in prac- tice and applied to some art, machine, mamifaeture, or composition of matter. J'Jarle v. Sntci/er, 4 Mas., 0. — Story, J.; Mass., 1 H25. 7. What constitutes form, and what prineiple, is often a nice question to de- cide. The safest guide to accuracy in makii'g the distinctiM, the (-fitirai'tir of tlio nuichine. J'arher v. Jliilttie, 7 West. Law Jour., 422.— Kaxi:,J. ; I'a.., 1849. 18. lie nniy assert and establish his iiropcrty, not only in the formal device for which mechanical ingenuity cmi at once, as soon as the princijdc is known, imagine a thousand substitutes — some JI.S (rood, others better, perhajis all dis- fiiuiilar, yet all illustrative of the same principle, and depending on it — but in the essential principle which his ma- chine was the first to endjody, to e.vom- jdify, to illustrate, to nuike operative, and to announce to mankind. Ibid, 422. 19. This is not to patent an abstrac- tion, hut rather the invention, as the inventor has given it to the world, in its full dimensions and extent — nothing less, but nothing more. It is to patent the invention in the broad and general terms that properly express it, and to secure to the party the exclusive right, for a limited time, to precisely that dis- covery which he has imparted to the public, and Avhicli the public, when that limited time expires, will enjoy. Ibid., 422, 423. 20. What is to be protected, is not an abstract or isolated principle, but the embodiment of a principle into a ma- chine or manufacture, as described in the specification ; and it is the inven- tion in conformity with that embodi- ment or representation of its working, which the act of Congress protects. Smith V. Downing^ MS. — Woodbury, J.; Mass., 1850. 38 21. It is well settled that a patent caimot cover a new principle, without reference to any mode or method of en- forcing it. Ibid. 22. The impropriety of granting n patent for the invention or discovery of a principle, however important it nmy hi' per tie, rests on the idea that the ex- clusive use of the invention is giv(>n to the patentee to reward his genius and exi)enso in making the invention, and pointing out how it can be used bene- ficially. The j)atent is, and niust be, in order to possess viiiidity, not for the priiuMpk' — but for the machine, mode, or nnnmfacture, to carry out the priniM- ple and reduce it to practice. The prin- ciple thus becomes the modus operandi, and rests in the new mode adopted to accomplish certain results. Ibid. 2;i. Though some exp'-essions may have been used by some of the judges, ';»hich look like a sanction to patenting a principle, yet they are used in the sense of a principle in operation, in the manner set out in the specification, or are used too loosely from haste and inad- vertence. Ibid. 24. A patent cannot be for a princi- ple or a result, but must be for the me- chanical means by which the principle is carried into effect, or the result attained. Urooks v. I^iske, M'*^, — Spraguk, J.; Mass., 1851. 25. Although a mere abstr.ict concep- tion of the application of a principle is not the subject matter of a patent, yet when it is reduced to practice by any means, old or new, resulting usefully, it is the subject of a patent, independent of the machinery by which the applica- tion is made. Ihote v. Sihby, 2 Blatchf., 265.— Nelsox, J. ; N. Y., 1851. 26. And it is immaterial whether the means used be new or old, for though , ..- ,.».^'V'-''I Ui/Wi»^^^'^' ,-^'V-'JS..'J»' 4 A ' ! I ''■■ ■1 .^' '^Mfk^v I^^^Pnl i ^yi^u '::wm n ;^^^'^^'*****a -'-' k by / /. nH PKINCirLE. WUKTIIKR I'ATBNTAULB; TO WHAT KXTBNT. !»'■ ^**'- >^..*«. l«-ifW nl)1 ini>an8 be iikciI for j^iviii^ iippliciition to tlio lU'W coiK'cption, yi't the imti'iit t'Xclutli'H J?U ptTHdns otlu'i" tlinii llic pat- fiitec from thi' tise of thoM" iiu-niis, and of all utiicr iMc'iiiN, in a hiinilar applioa- tion. I?)id., 205. 27. A priiu'iplo in tlic abstract is a futubuiu'iital tniih — an original cause — a motive; these oannot be patented, as no one ean elaiin in either of them an ex- clusive right. Nor can an exclusive right exist to a new power, shouhl one bo dis- covere«l, as steari, electricity, or any other power of nature, f^e Itoy v. 2\i- t/i(wi, 14 How., 175, — Mfr;ut philosophical ideas, nor the natuial fiiiir- tions either of the human bo rKIWUNtt; WIIIOH WILL DUTKAT A PATIKT, test the question of infrin^eiuent, tho question «tf priiiciph' «'oiufs up in this liu'ht, Wiiat is the i' >de of operation of the inaehine invented? Shujir v. ]V,iht>sh'i/, MS.— Gii.F.s J.; Md., 1850. H8. A priiu'iple is not p:itentable; bnt if one iliseovers a principle, and a mode of operution, lie has a right to have u latent for tho mode of currying the nrincipio into clfect ; and if anybody takes his principle and his mode of op- eration, suV>stantially, thon^h lie varies the tbrni, he is an infrinjjfer. Ifuif. .19. However brilliant tho discovery of a new jirinciidts may bo, to make it iiHcfiil it must be applied to some prac- tical purpose. Short of this no patent can he granted. Zc A'o?/ v. Tathuiii^ '!•! How., 137. — ^IcLkav, J.; Sup. Ct., lHr)0. 40. Tho principle may bo tho new and valuable discovery, but the practi- cal i4)plication of it to some Jiseful pur- pose iit tho tost of its value. Ibid.y 137. PRINCIPLE OP A MACHINE. See Macuinks, A. PRINTED PUBLICATION. See PuBuc Wouk. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND IN- VENTION. See also, as bearing on tliis title, In- vention, B. ; Invuntok, A., B. ; Pub- lic Work. 1. In this country, if it appears that the plaintiif was not the original in- ventor, in reference to other purls of tho worhl as wt'Il as America, he is not »'n- titled lo a patent. Atitn-, in Kngland, in conseiiiience of the statute (»f .lames I., which speaks of new inanufictures, witlihi the rcttlm, Jitiitf/en v. J\tiit(iin\i, 1 Wash., 170. — Wasiiinoto.v, J.; Pa., 1801. 2. In an action for a violation of a pati'iit, to eiititlo tho plaintiif to re- cover, the jury must ])e satisfied that, he was i)ie original inventor, not only in relation lo the United States, but to other parts of tho world. Even if there was no proof that the plaintiif knew that the discovery had been bifbro made, still he could not recover, if in truth ho was not the original inventor. Jhtwaun V. JAjllCii, 2 Wash., 31 1. — WAsniNtiTo.v, J.; Pa., 1808. 3. It is not neci'ssaiy, to defeat a patent, that a machine should have pre- viously existed in every respect similar: a mere change of former projiortions will not entitle a party to a patent. Woodcock V. Parker, 1 Gull., 340. — Stoky, J.; Mass., 1813. 4. The title of a patentee in.iy be im- peached by showing th.at his invention had been known and used before in any part of the world, although lie Avas ig- norant, at the time lie received his pat- ent, that the invention had been in uso before his discovery. Eoans v. Eaton, Vet. C. C, 342.— WASIIIN..TON, J. ; Pa., 1810. [Affirmed, ;ms^ 9.] 5. Any patent may be defeated, by showing that the thing secured by tho patent had been discovered and put in :ictual use prior to the discovery of the p.itentee, however limited the use or tho knowledge of the prior disiovery may have been. Jicdford v. Hunt, 1 Mas., 305.— Story, J.; Mass., 1817. G. If the first inventor reduced bis .. lu, 'i,,» I '■ I-! 'J A»^SM{ ^u ;''• ^Wmg\ liii ^-'^ n VlDftlti !! w ■fe^S^k^ y -.-•-fiTS m 800 .J i^j N. -lt^' nilOU K\OWI,i:i)fJK, OK IWKNTIOX. or Tlllltl) I'CIIMINh; WIIK II will. UKri'AI- A PATKNT. tlu'firy to pniftlcc, niid put IiIm utiu^liiiio or «)tli(.>i' iiivontiori into usi>, tlio l:iw cotiM novor intctid that tlio ^nuitor or loNH UHu in wliicli it nii^lit be, or tlio iiioro or U'SH wi'icly the kiiowlcilj^c of itH ovistciK'c inij^lit circulate, mIkhiM con- Ntitiitc till' criterion l»y wliicli to decide Upon the validity of any Hul).se(|iieiit pat- ent for the same invention. I/>i(f., UO.'i. 7. It makes no ilifU-ronct! as to the jmtentee's ri;j;hts, whellier the prior ma- chiiK' or invention has fallen into disuHe or not : if it was used l)ef«)re his discov- ery III! camiot ohinin a patent for it. J'Jniha v. J/ittirA; ;J Wash., 44:).— ■\Vasiiinuton, J. ; I'a., 1818. H. And it is in material whether the jiatentee had noticof a prior invention or not. If it was in nse in any jtart of the world, however unlikely or impos- pihlo that the fact should come to the knowled,!^e of the patentee, his patent for the same niaehinu oaiuiot bo sup- ported. 11)1(1., 44;!. 9. Under i? of the net of 1793, if the thing had been in use or known an- terior to the patentee's supposed discov- ery, his patent is void. Though the pat- entee had no knowledge of such previ- ous use, still his i)atent is void, as the law supposes ho may have known it. J^'mtns w Eaton, 3 Wheat., 514. — Mau- siiAix, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1818. 10. If a defendant attempts to avoid a patent, by showing that the patentee was not the original inventor, the pat- ent will be considered as relating back to the original discovert/, and not to the time of ajiplicaticn for a patent. Dixon ,'. Moj/er, 4 Wash., 72. — Washington, r.; Ta., 1821. 1 1. Under the act of 1793, the inven- tion must be now as to all the world, and must not have been "known or used before the application" cither by tho invi'ntor or others ; nnd miiit bp useful. The time of the tliscoverv ro. ferred to in \j^ 0, refers to the date df the application, and doen not go ]ku\ of it. Thompson v. IlitiijhU I U. S. I.hw .lour., T)?;!. — Van Nkss, .1.; N. V., Is.'j. I'J. }5 1 of tho act of 17!»3 is lo Ih- construed with J} 0, and means that tliu improvement or discovery hIiouM lie unknown and not used as the invon. lion of any other person than tlic p.it. etitee, before the application for a |);it. ent. Moni» v. IfuHtiiii/ton, I I'liln,., m:*'.'.— Tno.Mi'soN, J. ; N. v., lh'J4. 13. The use of an invention l.y an- other, while the inventor is practi^in.r and experimenting with it for the Huku of perfecting his invention, will mil in. validate the patent afterward griinhd the inventor. Ibid., 354. 14. Under the act of 1703 the prior existence of .-m article the same in piin. ciple M'ith an article jiatente witH not tlit< tii-Ht inventor, or that tlic NtiiMt' tldn^ had lit'iii in iiHi! l)i'lorc hJM invcnlioii, nnh'xs tlio jury fan safi'Iy coiuliuh' rinm the a|i|ifarari(Hi of Hiich iirtirU's, that tlioy wiTc niadu hy u niachinc oiidtodyin^ t|ii> |irin(>i|>l(>H of plaintiirs patent. Ti-riiihnll V. Jilin/iH, 4 Wash., TO*}.— WAsiiiN:>t to invalidate a patent, till' thitiLJ patented, wlii-re a prior pat I'lit in relied on, must ha\e hcen ns»'d iiiior to *lio alh'j^tMl t/iicuvcri/ of the |i;iteiitPO, anil that it is fiot Nuflieiciit to hlmw tliat it wan so used prior to the aii|iliiMtion. //>//i/< v. Jlii-kiidl, ;» McLean, 'JO;J. — iMcLic.w, J.; Ohio, 184;i. 20. An inventor will not bo deprived of the beuelils of his invention and a rij,'lit to a patent, hy a use of his inven- tion hefore his application for a patent, without his con.scnt and against his will, tiinl -.vithout any Itches or misconduct on liis part. Pierson v. EtKjU Screw Co., 3 Story, 407.— Stouy, J. ; li. I., 1844. i!l. If a patentee is not the first or original inventor, in reference to all the world, ho is not entitled to a i)atent, though he had no knowledge of any previous use or description of the in- vention. Street v. Silver, Brightly, 08. -UoGEns, J. ; Pa., 1840. •i'2. The provii*ioiiM of {<;{ 7 aiwl 1.% of the act of iH.'itI, introduced an impor- tant nioditieation into tlio law of put- entH, desi;.Mied t«> protect the American inventor against the injustice of heiiig thrown out of the fruits of his ing«'nit- ity hy till) existence of a secret inven- tion or discovery iihroail — tliat is, a dis. covery not patciitetl, and not dest ril»cd in any printed pulilication. Anon., ."^ Opin., '-'I.— Toi (K.v, Atty. (ten.; \H\H. '2'.\. A f»nniijt(ii: hiventor in this conn- try, and who helieved himsi'lf to he tin' original and lirst inventor, nt the time of his ap|ilicatioii, and did not know or he- lieve his invention had hefore heen known or used, is entitled to a patent for his in- vcntion, though the sann; invention m:iy have heen kmiwn ami used in a foreign country, provided it had not heen pat- ented or descrihed in any printed puh- lication. /f>i(f. 24. In such a ease, the American in- ventor is, in contemplation of law, un- der the provisions of the act of Con- gress, the original and first inventor. Tlie fact that an invention, not ])atented or descrihed in any printed puhlication, has been before known and used in any foreign country, is inun.alerial, except so far as it may have come to the knowl- edge of the American inventor, and con- flict with the oath he is recpiired to take as an original inventor. Il/id. 25. If the apidicimt is .an original in- ventor, and is in a condition to take tlio oath re(piired, the ai^t recpiircs the Com- missioner to issue the patent, and the courts to declare it valid, and establishes the American right, to the exclusion of the foreign discovery, which has not, in either of the modes indicated by the act of Congress, been communicated to the public. Ibid. 26. Where a prior invention is set up ''"iM^) •-cC '"■rliN*^*»*lll'' \>JU>^. wWWWj M^ •^lat>»t. tn (li'tt'iit 11 pntciit, Nti(!h iiivoiilioti iniiht he mIiowii to l)i> tiMtro tlimi lui idcti, tmd Tiiii«t liiivt* Im*i'ii rciliK'ctI to Motiio priKv tirjil iiKc. An nliorfivt' »'\|u'iimriir will Hot lio Niillii'icnt. Mr, I lM:»t«'lit:, 383.— Xki.ho!*, J.; N. Y., '-'7. WluTc ri prior InviMition wim cliiiiiK Niil)<«(anti:tlly lilvc ii sub- tXMpiciit OHO, //(/'/, the jury I'oiiM i;il<»> into coriHJili'ration, in ilcli'i-miiiiii^ tliu question ot" identity, tliaf Kinh prior in- Vetitioti was known to persons wlio ex- perinieiited to prodiiee tlie sidisetpient one, hut failed to do ho. Ibid., 3H(). 'JH. It is not e! MiLjh to defeat a patent nireaily issiu'd, tliat anotlier conceived • th<' idea or possibility of elfcctin^ what the palenteu nccoinpli-^hed. I'ltrA'/iurHt y. JihiHtnini, 1 Ulatchf, 40i. — Nki,hon, J.; N. v., iMt!). 21). To constitute a prior invention, the party alU'j^od to huvo produced it must have proceeded ho far aH to Imve re. quired, to defeat the title of the pati'ti- tu«* of an improved mnchine, /bid,, 4■J,^, ;j;». In inler to confer any exrlu^JM. right on the patentee, the thing patent- ed must iiave b«>en original with the in- vontor, and not known to others. 'l'||,, only exception to this rule, is where mi imlividiial obtains a [latent, believin^r the invention to bo original, nnd ii j^ made to appear it had been hnotm in w /■(»>•»'////< country, but not patented tlicn, nor «lescrilie stantially the same, and used the samo ;v.% %■>., t of wilut M n«- If of tilt' |>:»ti'ii- iiu'. /A/t!iint''l a t invaiiiliito such Viiihr, 10 How., )li. J.; Slip. Ct., 1, F., invontod an consist in jj; ot'tlu' lu'st, tho spaoolic- 1(1 with jilastor of ]>rovenu'nt lottcrs [n lH4:i, and on an lent, brono;lit liy is provod that C, !29 and 1832, li;vl r\\ use a safe siil> id used the saino rniou k\()\vi.kim;k, on invkntiox. 500 ■T TIIIBO raiMKHt WHICH Wll.l. Wttkl k rATIXT. ittiill )H38. ivhvn It iMiMM'd ont (if hit liutidi. itnd no othor trtict' of it whm nhi'wii ; Hiid C hiniMflf almi piirohitM«>d jinotlior Mafu for hit own u^o, iind thoro wat no ovidono*' that K. I'von had any liiioNslodK*' of ilif invention and iiHe liy ('. ; /A/'A that K. wuh to he eonMidered 114 a tirtt and original inventor with- in till' meaning; o\' the patent taws of the i'nited Staten, notwilliMlandin!^ ihi' iirior iii*e hy ('., F. hein^T in reality the timt to confer on the piiMie the honelit of the invention, the safe of ('. having; pass- (>il fruMi his memory and those who had Docn il. !>nd havin;; disappearod, and the knowledge of the iinproveniont heiii); iiK ((iinpletoly lost as if it had never lu'on tliseovert'd. IhhL, 41)tl, IDS. ;t7. lly the knowledj^e and use, re- filled to in 55 of the net of 'sao, is meant knowledge luid use uxiMin;; in u iiiiiniior aeoessibltj to tiie public. J/>iii,, 41)7. ;i8. Tho flanu> rule liolds also in re- Kpeot to the lost arts. If any one should discover u lost art, and it was a useful improvement, ho would bo entitled to a p{ifoiit, though ho would not literally 1)0 the tirst and ori^rinal invontor. Itut ho would be tho first to confer on the puhlic the benefit of tho invention. He would discover what is unknown, and coniniuiiicato knowlodjje which the piil)- lie had not tho means f obtaining with- out his invention. If)id., 407. 39. Tho patentee nuist be tho origi- nal invontor of the machine orimprove- niont, or ho can receive no patent. The original inventor, means the first inven- tor, subject only to the provision of § 16 of the act of 1 830. The law author- izes no presumption of forgotfulncss. The question is, w^as C.'s invention prior to F.'s. It is of no importance that C's bvention was used only for his private ptirpoM*. Tfie invention is tho ipiestion, and not the manner of its use. If F. was not the original and ilmt inventor, h<> is not entitled to a patent. //><>/., 4lM» .'.o-j, ftOd, fto7. — .M. I.i:.\v, J.; I)ani';i„ J., Dissenting. 40. The illustration uf n hmt nrt ii not apposite to (he case. Tliat term i* a)iplicable to certain niomiiiieiits of an* titpiity still r«OH. 41. To defeat a patent on tho ground of prior invention, the tpiestion is wheth- er anterior lo such patent, any person had discovered the application of tho priiH-iple involved ui such pat'-nt, and applied it by some ap])aratiis w Inch ojh erati'd to etrect the object secured by such pati'iit. /'hole v. St'Mti/, 'J IJlatchf., I'Ot).— Nki,.s()X, J.; N. v., IHjI. 42. In order to overthrow tho claim of a patentee, the thing set up in do- fence, teiuUng to disprove the novel- ty of the patentee's invention, must bo of practical utility, and must have em- braced all tho elements of tho paten tee's combination. If>id., 274. 4;}. To tho general rule laid down in Uiuins V. JtJ<(to>i, Pet., C. C, 340, that if an inventor abandons his invention, no other j)erson can take out a patent for it, there are exceptions, as in tho caso of the lost arts, where tho knowledge of tho invention has been as completely lost as if it had never been discovered Jiich V. Lijyjnncott^ 20 Jour. Fr. Inst. 3d Ser., 15,— Guier, J. ; Pa., 1863. k ■*-w» 'r'HMii ir^.^^;j-yj Wi''''«Mf%i«< *. C «> - wiM**—'^ 000 I'Ulull KNOW I.KIHIK. OK INVKNTIOX. •r Tmw .5 It «! Plii % ^^.. I WHIM WIU. MVMT A rAHBrr. 41. Milt ir tlio original iiivfiitiuti n>- niain(>i| ill rxiMti'iH'tt iiikI iim«*, arid Iiiih iiDt Ih'i-ii «>iitir«>ly loMt mill rur^utti'ti, tlii> (iiiiix>iiiiii nf tlio uri^iiiiil iii\«'iiti)r to l)i'iti^ it into |)iil)li<' iiM< or tiotiiM' <(<>«'» not ^ivt< n Nul)Mi'i|iiriit iiiv«>titor u rixht lo :i |»nti'iit. //lii-Nt iiivfiitor may hnvc iiliiiiiiloiini iiN !!<«(>, uihI Itct'ti i^iio- ntllt of tlll> I'XtcIlt of ItM Vllllll>, II Hiilmr- <|iii'iit iiivi'titor of tlu' K.imi' lliin-j; woiilil not III- ciititlctl to :i piitctit tliiTi-tiir, pro- viilcil tlii> original invention, ami lli<> iiiotle of itH coimtriu'tioii, \vt>ro Htill in the int'iuoi-y of tliiMiriu'inal inventor, or in llu' knou |i'i|ir,' of others, licfore tln-y Wert' n-eatlt'il \iy tint Hiibsefjiu'tit invi'ii- lor. //i| liis theory to |ir.'h'lice, and |iiit his inv«'ntion into line, the law never would intend that the jLTicateror lesH nse in which it inij.jht !»e, or the more or len* widely tl;** knowl- edj^e of its j'xiHteiic ,• mlj^ht <'irenl:it«', nlundd eonstitnte the critt'rion l)y which to decide upon the validitv of anv snlmc- qiient patent for the invention. //>/r. ed ha^ Ix'cii dcHcrilted in nny for(*i;;ii piililicntioii, hefore thi< invention nf ili,. patentee, it will he liitiil to his ri^lit, TIiIn ^oes upon the preMiimptlon, if oiirli foreign piihlicatioii liait lieeti made, tlio patente«> may have Mci|iiired a kiiowj- ed^ ■ of it ; and this presiiniption j^ nut reltiittcd liy proving;, mo far as a iic'ii. live can lit* proved, tlial the invfiiinr had no kiMiwIedvfe of it. Atlfii v. tfuh. frr, .Mc|,.an, :«i;i, Jl4.— .McLkvn, .1.; Ohio, lH.^.'i. flO. To defeat a patent on the groimtl of prior invention, it is not sntllciciit that .'mother person has concei>cd tlir possiliility of eHeclin;^ what the puidi. tec has accomplished. To constiiiitc n prior invention, the party alleged to have made it must have proc(>edci| ko ttir as to have ei''itl«'d hiniself to .-i |i;i|. ent, in case he had made an application. /A///., .'J'-'l. 51. A prior accidental combinntioii or invention, simil;ir in character to tli:it which the plaintitfh: s patented, hut un- der circiimstanceH Huch tiiat the piihljc ohtained no knowledjje of the invi'ii. tion, will not defeat a patent. limiHtm V. Mnyor^ cO'"., of Xnc Yurie, ,MS.— ir.vi.i,, J.; N. Y., iHftO. 52. As to tiie (piestion of infiiiijft>- nient, it is a standin*; principle of law, that every person in entitled to tlii' I'|(t nse of whatever was known aii'l iiseil, prior to the patent which atteni|'ts to appropriate it as u new disc(»very, and it is unimportant whether the cl.:ii!utPi ami capacities of machinery open totrcii- eral use are understood or not liv the • public at large, or had been used by many; it is suflicient to show tli.it the public had free means of access to it, and to employ it, and the l.-uv then prt'- sumes it was well known and in public vc.v c^- PIlTOIl KVOWT.KDOK, OR INVKVTIOV. noi it;il coiiibiiiatinn lion <»f infiinpo- iriiicipli' «it' l:iw, ititli'd to tilt' fVci' ktiowii iiml UHt'il, liifli iittcmi'tH to w discdv iTV, ami uT till' fl.:iniitoi llU'ry OJUMI tn}.'!'!!- 1(1 or not l>y the I l»i>i'ii used by Ito show that till' of acci'ss to it, hie liuv then pre- Iwn and in public UV TIIIM) rKMMINIII WIIK'M Witt l)Rni«T A I'ATMKT. „«.. Smith V. Iliijyint^ MS.— limn, J.; N.V.. I«'17. All. A |)ri>vi«MiM «lcH('ri|)tioii of H thill); ilia iwitt'iit or Work U like iiolici', and ol'tbc KIlllll' crt'l'ft IIJ(!lill>«t II |lltt«'lllU(', llX :( iiiililiii >i«f of I ho ihiii); ilwt'lt'. Such priiir ii<><> iir iiolicit iiiiiMt, howitvur, huv<< iH'i'ii pt'i<'>' to thi< diiti> id' th«' |itili'iiti'«>'H ,|i«'tm'rv, or »t h'i»'N with till' ttati' of till' art in wliiidi ilii'V arc iiitcri'^tfd, us iii:kdt' known in \iooV< or \<) initchiiM'M iniilt and put in u-i'i and I'vidi'ni'o Ih not ailminHildt' to provi' tin' I'ontrary; nor is it inatli'r ri()r exislenee of the tliiiii,' abroad. Vorhtixh v. Cook\ 10 Mn. Law Kep., 004.— (Jiutih, J. ; MaHS., 1857. .'id. In deterininiiij^ tho question, un- der JS 15 of the act of 1h;«0, whether a |i;il(iiti'e belii'ved hiinsolf to be tho first invi'iiturof the thinj^ patented, notwith- staiidiiiiif tho actual existence of hiicIi tliiiii; in a foreign country, wliich, how- oviT, bad not been patented or describ- ed, the defendant may give evidence. that the patclili'f klirw of the (>viitten(*tt of the lliiti;; abroad ; and in ron«iderin){ the fact whether he M/n'"/ himself to^ Im* the lirsi inventor, it in niaierial tn dft«-riniiie whether he was in f.tct thu ori;{iiial inventor. /A/d;{e, which wilt deprive a paten- lee of the ri<;ht (granted to him, it IM not enough that the person o ei .oil the idea that the thing could Ih; .I."!.; but he must liavu put his idea into pruo* lice. /'op/H itfumii n V. X. V.ff. P.Conih ('H. (iH, To defeat a patent which has boon issued, it is not enough that sonie ono, before the pateiif eoiicoived the idea of etVecting what the patentee a'-complish- ed. To eonstittitu Much n it.'ior inven- tion an will avoid a patent that has been granted, it must be made to appear that some one, before the patentee, not only conceived the idea of tloing what the patentee has done, but also that he re- duced his idea to practice, and embodi- ed il in some useful and practical form. The idea must have been carried into practical operation. /'Utifhor^n' v. AW>- ertnoHy MS. — I.NnKusui.i., .^ ; N. V., 1H50. 50. Kxperimeiits made, eipiivocal in their rcHults, and given up for years, will not bo permitted to prevail ag.ninsi an original inventor who has reiluccil his invention to practice, and has with- out fraud tained a patent. I/nif. 00. The decision in (^injl,r v. M'ililcr, 10 How,, 41)0, 1850, is only that if tho discov* ry of the tirst invi-nlor had been so far l.'iid asiilc, tli;it it w.is in point of fact absolutely and irrevocably forgot ton by him and by the world, but for its ri vail to his memory by the second in- vention, then tho second inventor must 1'tl >fW ,r'i ^Wih^VM' ■m ^(i|P!iu| 602 riaOK KNOWLKIMIK, OK INVKNTIOX. BY TlllllI) I'KltflONN; WHICH WILL PKKKAT A PATIHT. t US** n^ :Wl«' 1»»> licld ciiii.illy moritorious as the » who tliscovt'i'H u loii]^ loHt art, or an iin- pati'iitrd aiitl iin|)til)lislu>tl I'oiviL;!) iiivcii- tioii, aixi like iiiin oiititlctl to a patoiit. Jiafx'ock V. Jhijcmr., MS. — (Api). Cas.) — ^Mkkim. K, J.; 1). C, IH^O. 0). Tlu' laiit;iia<^iM)f' tlu' lir.st proviso of ^ 1') of till' act of I Slid, (jualilios tlu' laiigiiagt' of j5 U of tlu> same act, ami (tliows that by kiiowlcdi^c and use the h'jjislatiiri' meant kiio\vIcil to the puhhc. Cti/ioon v. Jihi<;, MS.— t'i,iKKt>Ki>, .1. ; Me., 1850. (•2. Wliere, therefore, a i)ersoM in- vented :\ mat hine, hut did not make it ])ublic, and liad used it tor no purpose except simply for his own private e.v- j»erimcnts, and it had been broken up, and thi' niaterials used for other pur- poses, and its essential parts had been lost, prior to the invention of the same tiling by another person, who had ob- tained a patent for his invention, J/eld, that such prior iiivention .and use was no obstacle to the subse«pient inventcr taking out a p.atent, and would not in- validate his ])atent. Ifn'tf. U;t. And if a single specimen only of such inachine was m:ide, whether capa- ble of tise, or whether actually used or not by the ))arty making it, for the pur- pose of testing its t)peration, if such ma- ehiuo was kept in the maker's own pos- session, from the knowledge of the pub- lic, and was subsecpie.aly broken up, and its substantial parts lost, so that the public could not derive the knowledge of it from the machine itself, but only from tiie memory of the alleged inven- tor, the existence of such prior machine will not invalidate the patent of a sub- sequent inventor, though such prior ma- chine may liave embodied all the im- provements of tiic subsequent one, if the subsequent inventor was an original inventor, without knowledge of the prior one. Ifn'd. U t. The i>rior use of an inveiiti„i, in Kngland, from 1H.')5 to IH.'ii), 1„„ „^^ with the consent of the inventor, is n,, bar to his receiving a patent therefor, Fri/ . 00. A patent will not be avoided, by the mere fact that the invention or dis- covery patented lian was prior in point of time to tin' inveu- tioii of the patent I'c. It is not suflicicnt thiit such i)ublication was ])rior to the applicdfioii of the patentee for liis pat- ent. Jf>i(l. 08. The tinie referred to in § 15 of the act of 1830, by the terms "having been before known and used in any for- eign country," or " had been j)atontoil or described in any printed pul)li('atioii," is the time when the original discovm or invention of a patentee M'as niado, and not the time Avhen lie jax'soiiteJ his aj)plication for a patent. Ibid. 09. It is not proof of the want of iMi OwU'dgc of till' f im iiiviMition in to IsriO, but not 10 invi'iitor, is no , ])!U('iit (lu'ivfor. p,MS.(Ai.i..(;!i8,) ., 1850. thinfif in 11 forciijn lidatu :i jtattMit at- liisoouiitn, wlu'io 1 himsL'lt'to bo till' ht) prior invoiUioii tlescribed in sonio 'Jol man v. Lksur, ►bio, 185!). lot l)i> avoidi'il, by lO iiivnitinii or dis- bi'cn known :iiul iitry b'.'foro tlic (lis- itro, ])roviib'(l tlu' • ot" liis !i|>|iliciiruin H:J',", ;< !")), bt'lii'voil st ami oriiiiiial in- itfiitcd. liitrthol S. — iNtiKUsoi.i,, ,1.; n in any jirinti'd \\\\\* jiati'iitcil will sucb imblii'iitidn ime to till' ///Wi- lt is not siiflli'it'iit was jirior to the vtc'iitoo lor hisiwt- rrcd to in § 15 of tbo terms " li:iviii!i ml nscd in any tor- lad been patontiil iutcil publication,' oriiiinal discovcrv tentoc was niado, en he presented his jnt. Ibkl f of the want of PRIOR USE. 608 IIY INVKNTOK; TU rUUrEIT KUIHT TO A PATINT. oiiu'inality or novelty in an invention f„r wliii'li an American citizen has ol»- laiui'tl 11 pi»l'''>t, t'li't it may have been known or usoil in a foreii^n country, uiilrss it appeal's that tlTT^ invention or improvement was patented in such tor- lini country, or there described in some iiiililif work. JihIkoii v. (\>i>t\ MS. — I.KAViTr, J.; Oliio, iHiio. 70. I»ut to make such a de'i'nce avail- abli', it must appear that the improvo- nii-nt which has been known in a ibr- lis^n C(>untry has been so clearly and intelligibly described, that the invention (oiild be niado or constructed by a com- jH-lt'iit mechanic. A mero sn^j^estion or iinperlect description t>t*an invention would not be suflicient to defeat the AniiMican patent. IbUl. ;i. To defeat a |)atont by reason of prior use or knowledge, s»n'h juior nse or knowledt^o nmst be shown to have Dltii anterior not merely to the date of the imtent, but to the time Avhen the inveution was actually made. Ifnd, 72. Kvidenco camiot bo received «»f actual use aiul knowleduce of an inven- tion ill a foreign country, prior to the time of the invention here, in order ^o defeat tho American patent, but the defendants must bo confined to the de- seriptiou of tho invention as found in luinted publications or patents; (hey eannot go beyond Huch publication or patents, because no prior use abroad, unless the invention lias been described inapriuieil publication or has been pat- ented, will atVect tho validity of the I patent in this coimtry. Ibid. 1'i, It is not necessary to show that a prior invention had ever been put in use; it is enough to bar a rijjfht to a patent to show that the thing had been described. Seek)/, Ex parte, 318. ( Apj). Cas.)— DuNi,oi>, J.; 1). C, 1800. 74. If an invention is completed, it i^ wholly immaterial as to the qui stion of priority of invention, how limited was the use or knowledge (>fllic prior dis. covery. iS(iirtci'a»it v. Grcvnouijh, MS. (App. Cas.)— Mkuku'K, ,I. ; I). ('., IHOt). 75. To constitute* a prior inv«'ntion, which will avoid a patent, it is necessa- ry that there should havt' been not only an idea of the machine, but it sliouM have been embodied in a working nn\- chine. JMere experiments, which were unsatisfactDry and h:ive been abandon- imI, are not enough. Winans v. IhtH' forth, .MS.— Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1800. ruiou USE. See also AlJANDONMKNT, li. 1. 1. If an inventor had gratuitously im- parted, or negligently sulVered his inven- tion to become public before his appli- cation, he is not entitleil to a j>atent therefor. 77iovijtson v. J/ai .1 -1 public uso or sale of an invcii. lion, in order to deprive the inventor of his right to a patent, must be a public uso or sale by others with his knowl- edge and "consent, before his apiilicatioii for a jiatont. lii/an v. (Jooilicin, 3 Sumn., 518. — Stouy, J.; Mass., 1839. 11. If the use or sale is without such knowledge cr consent, or if the use k merely experimental, to ascertain its value, or utility, or the success of the in- vention, by putting it in practice, that is not such a use as will deprive the inventor of 1 '• title. Ibid., 518. 12. Such "< • r ale must also be be- fore applit ill ■ A sale or use with his knowledge anu .nsent, intermediate between his application for a patent and the grant thereof, has no sucii effect, Ibid., 519. 13. The use of an invention before application for a patent, to be suflicient to defeat a patent, under § 15 of the act of 183G, must be a public use of the in- vention sul>stantially as patented— niili the consent of the inventor — and : ;iist be cither generally allowed or acqui- esced in, or at least be unlimited in time, or extent, or object. Wyelhi rUIOR USE. COS IIY INVKNTDIl; TO FOUIi'KlT KIOIIT TO A PATKST. Stoiu; 1 ^tory, 281 — SroKY, J. ; Mass., IStO. 14. A inoro occasional use by the in- ventor, in trying experiments, or a tem- porary nsti by a lew jjersoiis, as an act of personal aecotnmodation or kindness for .1 sliort and limited period, will not take aw:>y =* I'igl't to a patent. Jl)id., 281. 15. On the other liand, a user with- out tlif inventor's consent, and adverse to his patent, is a ele.ar violation of his lifrlits, and cannot deprive him of his patent. If'lif; -'HI- '0. Tlie circumstances ought to be very clear and cogent, which Avill justify a eonrt in adopting a conclusion so sid)- versivc of i)rivate right.s — that a user of an invention before application for a patent, destroys the right to a patent —when the party has subsequently tak- en cat a patent. Ibid., 281. 17. § 7 of the act of 1839 allows the use of an invention, even by leave of the inventor, for two years before ap- plication, without invalidating his right to a patent ; a fortiori, the use by a third i)erson, or a subsequent inventor, after the first invention and before the issuing of a patent to the first inventor, without his consent, is no bar to the is- suing of a patent to the first inventor. nUdreth v. Heath, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cbascu, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 18. The use of an invention by the patentee himself, before his application for a patent, will not deprive him of his right to a patent. Reed v. Gutter, 1 Story, 597.— Story, J.; Mass., 1841. 19. It would be a fair construction of § 15 of the act of 1836, that if an in- ventor allow another, without objection, lo use his invention for a time, before making an application for a patent, but afterward obtain a patent, that such public use wouhl make the siibscinieut- ly obtained jiatciit void, lint if such use is reganled as luidcr an assunu'(l license, the ])atcnt might still be regarded valid. Mt'Chinj V. Kimjxhtnd, 1 How., 208. — r>Ai.i>wiN, J. ; Sup. Ct., 184:t. 20. § 7 of the act of 1830, allowing the use and sale of an invention, for two years before the application for a pat- ent, is in the nat»n-o of a statute of lim- itations; and the defendant selling • pa sale more tluui two years before, mast establish the fact of such a sale, in a manner that will justify a jury in taking away the property of the i)laiMtiir. Ho- x'c.y V. Ifewy, 3 West. Law Jour., 155. — Woonnunv, J. ; Mass., 1845. 21. The prior use or ssde of an inven- tion, referred to in § 7 of the act of 18o9, has exclusive reference to an orig- inal ii])plication for a patent, and not to a renewal or reissue of it. Stimpson v. West Chest. R. 11., 4 How., 403.— Mo Leax, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1845. 22. It is clear that under the act of 1830, and the act of 1839, a use, in or- der to defeat a prior invention, must be public, and with the consent of the in- ventor, and continue two ye.ars. Allen V. Blunt, 2 Wood. & Min., 143.— Sto- ry, J.; M.ass., 1846. 23. Neither a stipulation for the s.ale of an invention before it is com- pleted, nc A sale of such invention du- ring the application for a patent, is such a use as will defeat a p.atent. Spark- many.IIiggins, 1 Blatchf., 209. — Beits, J.; N. Y., 1846. 24. An inventor may forfeit his right to a patent, if he constructs and vends his invention to others for use, or uses it publicly at any time prior to two years before he makes application for a pat- ent. That is, he is not allowed to de- rive any benefit from the sale or use of ■4^' — C5K' 000 PRIOR USK. BV INVENTOR; TO FORnOT RIUUT 10 A PATENT. ^ »j^; 1 i f'-T I tP'^ IiIh in:ic]iiiiu witliout foill-itinjif liis rifjflit, except witliin two years prior to the time of iiis application. J'itfs v. J/all, 2 IJiatchf., 235.— NKI-8UX, J.; N. Y., 1851. 25. Such use however nm«t ho hy the hiveiitor hiiiiHelt'pti'i.licIy, in the ordina- ry way of a public use of the machine, and not by way of experiment, and with a view to further iinj)rovementw, or of ascertaining its defects. Il*id., 235, 2ao. 2G. This ground of forfeiture is not favored in hiw ; the evidence must be cpiite clear that the use was not by way of experiment, or for the purpose of per- fecting a machine, in order to justily the conclusion that the patentee had for- feited liis riglit to tho improvement. Ibid., 237. 27. Under the act of 1839, an inven- tor may use his improvement, by mak- ing and using his machines, and by vending and t.aking pay for them, for two years previous to his appUcation for a patent, without forfeiting the benelits conferred upon him by his patent. But if an huentor either sells a machine or uses one, or puts one into public use, at any time more than two years before his application, it works a forfeiture of his right to a patent. JlcCormlck v. tSet/moyr, 2 Blatchf., 254. — Nelson, J. ; N. Y., June, 1851. 28. How far tho use of an invention for a tiiue, so long as it could be kept a secret, and securing a patent only when there was danger of discovery, would invalidate a patent granted ; que- ry. Goodyear v. Day, MS.— Grier, J.; N. J., 1852. 29. The use of an invention which will operate as a forfeiture, must be the use of the perfected invention — the in- vention complete. If the use be ex- perimental, to ascoi'tain the value, ortJK; utility, or the success, of the thitijf in. vented, by putting it into pructiou Ijv trial, such use will not deprive tlm m. entco of his right to tho product of lii, genius. Winona v. iV. Y. <£• //«,.. j^ 7i., 31 Jour. Fr. Inst., 3d Scr., [\22.~. Nki.son, J.; N. Y., 1855. 30. An absolute sale by an invt'iitor of his invention to another, is o(|iuvakiit to a public use of his invention with his consent, and the inventor cannot, liy a rejiurchase of his uivention, resume any rights he may havo lost by such a sale. JIu/it V. JTuwe, IMS. (App. Cas.) — MousKix, J.; D. C, 1855. 31. Unless the use of an invention ex- ceeds two years before an ai)}ilit'atioii for a i)atent, there is no abandonment. Ileinrich v. Luther, C McLean, 347.— McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1855. 32. The sale of an invention for more than two years before an applicutionfor a patent, bars the applicant under § 1 of the act of 1839, of his riglit to a pat- ent. Mugg V. Haines, MS. (App. Cas.) — MousELL, J. ; D. C, 1855. 33. IJoth before and since the act of 1839, an inventor might exercise and put in use his invention, or his claim tu an inchoate right to an invention, which was capable of being perfected to an exclusive right, by obtaining letters pat- ent. Sargent v. Seagrave, 2 Curt., 555, —Curtis, J.; R. I., 1855. 34. Before the act of 1839, he coulil, by way of experiment, bring the knowl- edge of his invention before the piihlic, at the same time making known that he was about to apply for a patent. Since the act of 1839, ho may sell any number of his machines to the public, during any period less than two years, accompanied by a claim to the inchoate right sufficient to show an intention not ;* Claims, 1H59. 40. Under the act of 1839, the right to a patent is forfeited only where the invention has been in use more than two years bcibre the apjillcation, and not before the granting of his |»atent. ^Id- atna \. Junes, MS. — OmKit, J.; I'a., lb.'»it. 41. If a party allow his invention to go int t public use, or sell it, for more than t\vo years betore hu makes appli- cation for a patent, he is not entitled to receive a jtatent. Cow/x:rthieaite v. Gill, MS. (.\i»p. Cas.) — MoKSKi.L, J. ; 1). C, 1859, 42. The putting on sale — otit of the possession or control of the inventor — without limit or restraint as to public or private use, an invention more than two years before application for a patent, though some of the articles may have been sold on condition, with the right to return them ; Held, such a sale as bars the inventor under g 7 of the act of 1837, to a right to a patent. iSceley v. Jhan, 3IS. (App. Cas.) — Moksell, J. ; D. C, 1861. 43. Under the act of 1836, the use of an invention, by a single person, or a sale of the thing invented to a single person, might amount to such a public use, with the consent or allowance of the patentee, as would forfeit his right to a patent. § 7 of the act of 1839, pro- vided a remedy for cases where the con- duct of the party did not show an act- ual abandonment. Sanders v. Tjoyan, 3 Wall., Jr.— Gkiek, J.; Pa., 18G1. 44. The use of sevenal machines in public, for more than two years i»rior to applying for a patent, although slightly varying in form and arrangement, yet substantially the same as afterward patented, cannot be alleged to be ex- ^ i' ..L •s»^L m\ ill 'immf>l ,,. V JI«K> ^''•^' '^fc"- ^"•>^li4iid' -' w.., ■■•*ii^>, mat ^^ J I ' ;• te^N) 008 k. J l^ajf WHAT MKAMT OY. rriiMc rsK.— iMiiMc woimc. WHAT ih; how Piiovau. ]>('flmtiil:il, so as to Jivoitl llic Ic^mI ('((H- Hi'i|iu'ii('('s «>r Hiu'h prior usi'. Ihiil. •tr>. 'I'llC oltviollH (lonsllMH'lioll of}} 7 of till' pali'iil act of 1H.I1), is that ii pur- t'hast', Hall' or prior uso, witliiii two yi'ars bt'foro applying for a palciii, shall not invaliilatt', unless it aiiioiiiits to an abau- (lunmuiit to Iho public. IhUl. I'KOFKKT. St'O ri.KADINO, C. PITIILIC VSK. 1. Public use is opposed to private use. If a man has an invention and liacs it privately, and nobody knt>ws of it, then the use of it cannot debar an- other person from an invention or i)atent of it. A(((onn v. J'Jdiranh, JNIS. J.; :Mass., 1848. 2. A public use need not bo a general use by the coinnnmity. It must be used, however, and used openly, so that the structure and 7noihis operandi are apparent. Ihid. 3. A public use, as meant by the stat- ute, is a use in public — it need not be generally adopted by the i)ublic. Pub- lic is not ecpiivalent to general, but dis- tinguislied from secret use — used in a jmblic maimer. Hunt v. ITowe, MS. (App. Cas.) — ]MoRSEM., J. ; 1). C, 185.5. 4. An absolute sale by an inventor of his invention to another, is equivalent to a public use of his invention with his consent, .ind the inventor caimot, by a repurchase of his invention, resume any rights he may have lost by such a sale. Tbid. 5. The public xise referred to in § 7 of the act of IHMO, means public as di,, jMised to^ccrt'^ause in publirnud not hu t he public. /•JUifhorjx' v. Jiobcr/.inn^ JIs (Aj.p. CaH.)— MoilSKix, J.; I). C, 1858. prin.ic woHK, on pkintid PUHLICATION. Seo also Puiou Knowikdhk and Invkntiox, 1. A report of a company desciiliini^a thing patented cannot be read in (.\i. deuce, under the provisions of tlu> |i:it. ent law, § of the act of I7!i:i, as it is a private not a public work. I'm- noek «C' Selli.ra v. JJitdoi/uc, 4 Wa.sh. 545. — WASiiiNdTON, J.; Pa., Ih-J,"). 2. Where the defence that a niacliitii' claimed to be essentially similar to tlmt of the plaintiif is set up, and the proof relied on is a description of such ma- chine contained in a written publication, such description must be sutlicicntlv full and precise to enable a niucliaiiic to construct it, and must be in all niali'iinl respects like that covered by or di^. scribed in the jjlaintilFs patent. Par/iXr V. iKtiles^ 5 jNfcLean, CI, 62.— 3IcLka.\, J.; Ohio, 1840. 3. If the thing invented or discov- ered has been described in any foreign publication before the invention of tiio l)atentee, it will be fatal to liis rigiit. This goes upon the i)resumption, if such fonign publication has been made, the patentee may have accpiircd a knowl- edge of it. And this presumption is not rebutted by proving, so far as :i negative can be proved, that tlie in- ventor had no knowledge of it. Alkn V. Hunter, McLean, 314. — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1855. 4. A public work or printed publir?- .^. .•••> rriM.lC WOUK. -n'HMCATION OK IJOOK. 000 ruovu). WHAT W; HOW PROVKP. WHAT la; Rrrarr or. ;;:.)i uis ptihlic n* ()|). )>ul>rH"A\\A not hif V. AV'A«v7,'(u;/,MS. ,,.).; 1).C.,1M8. Oil rUINTKl) vriox. Knowi.kdok and iHany tli'8(Mil)in!» n )t \w ri'iid ill I'vi- visions of till' |i:it- act of 17it:i, an '.t 111 die work. 1\h. Idlo'/uc, 4 Wash., J.; Til., 1825. iii'c that !i macliini" ally similar to tlint »i|), tviitl till,' jiniot' iptioii of 8udi iim- ivriltcn jmblicatidii, ust 1)0 Hiitlicifiitly liililo a murlianic to *t be ill all iiiati'n;il 3ovL'rt'il liy or dc. iFs jiatoiit. Pitrktr 01, O'i.— McLkax, ivciitcil or iliscov- icd ill any fori'iijn 10 invention of the fatal to his rigiit. )rcsuinptioii, if such las been nuulo, the acquired a kiunvl- lis presniiiption is •oving, so far as ;i ■oved, that t'.ie in- ledge of it. AUai an, 314.— McLean, : or printed publir?- tiiHi iimv be |)i'«>v<'i of the act of iHittI, to |iro\e that the invention of the ptiiintitV had liccii described, before the discovery thereof by the pati'iitce, is in)t evidi'iice of aiiv other facts or matter contained in it, hi'voiid the description of the iiiveii- tidii ri'fcrrcd to. Sii/inoia' v. MfCur- iiiir/c, ll> How., J07. — Xklson, ,1.; Sup. ft., IS.'iO. tl. A patent will not bo .-vvoided, by till' mere fact th.at tlie invention or dis- covery patented had been known and used in a foreign country, before the discovery of the |)atentee, provided the patentee at the time of liis application lor a patent (act of I8:(((, ^ l.'>) believed iiiinself to be tlio first and original in- ventor of the thing patented, linrthol- omcw V. Smoi/rr, MS. — lN»;Kit.soi,i,, J. ; X. Y., inr.o. 7. The description of an invontion in any public work, to invalidate a patent, ,1'oiild he, to Home degree, in th« nature ofu specification, so far as to enable a me- chanic skilled ill the art to conatriu^t the machino ; they should not be vague ref- cronces to or suggestions of the thing (Icscrihod. Colernun v. Liesiyr^ IMS. — LKAVirr, J.; Ohio, 185J). 8. To render admissible in ovidenco under § 15 of the act of 18.^0 a printed publication, it is not necessary to make proof of the date of its publication. A book purporting on its title-jjage to be published in "London m 1840," was admitted without other proof of pub- lication being required. Jtulson v. Cope, MS.— Leavitt, J. ; Ohio, 1800. 9. A book of plates, unacconiiianied hv any descriptiou whatever, cannot b»^ 30 reeeiv«»d In evidi'iice under JJ l.'t of the !ict of I Mild. S,in/>1<, that it is not a "printed publication." //*/ of a book imports ])nblicn- tion. It is to bo presumed that the purchaser exercised his right to know the contents of tin* book, and make them known to others, or that an actual publication followed the sale. ./lii/,rr v. 7}n/lor, 2 lilatehf., 85.— Hkhs, J. ; N. Y., 1848. 2. AVlierc copies of a bf>ok were sold prior to the dejx)sit of tlio tith'-page in till! clerk's oflice, ///i(l., 85. 3. And where a printed copy of a book, then complete, was deposited in the clerk's oflico at the same time the title-page was deposited there, Jfild, that this fact warranted the inference of actual publication before the deposit of the title-page. Ihid, 85. 4. The first publication of a work, without having secured a coj>yright, i? a dedication of it to the public ; that having been done, any one may repub lish it. Bartktt v. Crittendm, 5 Mc Lean, 37.— McLkan, J.; Ohio, 1849. 5. An acquiescence in the publicatioi -^-^ZL .■^H "'i.?.*'' I, ■''■■^mi^W4s^^\ ^'i Wi „. 610 rrnijcATiox or hook.-fm'im'osk. !WM' WHAT M; imOT or; WIIKTIIKR i'ATKNTABLI. of .1 luiuiiisoript, or in thv ri'imblicafion of II |)i'iiit«>siiiii|)- tioii ot* usHigniui'iit or iiharnlontnunt. Ibid., il. 0. All nittlinr inny licfiiHo the piilili- rntioii of Iiin iiuiniiscript. Kiit iiiiIohm A copyriylit is si'ciin'd tin- first piiMica- tioii of it will aitainloii it to tlu> public. /•«//*• V. Ihrhy.h McLean, 332.— Mc- Lkan, J.; Ohio, IH-^'j. V. An author may ho said to 1»e th(! creator or inventor, hoth of the itleas contained in his book, and tliu eoinbiiia- lion of wortls to represent tliein. He- fore puliiioation lie has the ex«-lusive possession of his iiiveiitioii. I^toire v. Tlionuis, 'J Ainer. Law Keg., 2iJH. — (JuiKK, J., I'a., 1853. 8. IJut Avlien lio has ])iiblis)ied his book, ;iiid given liis thoiiglits to the world, he eaii have no longer an exclu- sive possession of them. The author's concept ions have become the common ]»roperty of the public. Ihhl., '2'_'H. 9. The acting or representation of a play is not a publication within the mean- ing of the statute. Jiobcrts v. Mi/era, 13 Mo. Law Rep., 308. — Si'KAguk, J. ; Mass., 1800. 10. Li the absence of any legislation for the special protection of dramatic literary property, an authorized public circulation of a printed copy of a drama, for which there is no legisl.-itive copy- right, is a pul)lication which legalizes a subsequent theatrical representation by anybody from such copy. Keene v. W/teafh'i/, 9 Amer. Tiaw Reg., 44. — Cadwam.apeu, J. ; Pa., 1860. 11. The intended meaning of the word publ{catlo?i, in the acts respecting copyrights, is publication in print. Ibid., 44, 45, 05. 12. A publication of a composition ies an act which renders its contents, in any mode or degree, an addition to the store of human knowledge. //(//. lit'itfion is used without any exiirc^s (pialification, a jexirnl publit-ation U meant, /bid., 80, 90. 10. A publication is not directly iitUct- ed by printing, but follows it. //>/i|. •. fhi,/., 7s. trtciitioM of it is an •att's a knowii'di;.: ft aelect J)w, u|iuii ' or iiiiplit'illy [in. iiltorior (■nininiiiii. stricti'tl ])nvuli' in. D. oil wliicli 1» not re- rt jMTsons and pur. riicii till' wonl jiiiL itiiout any cxiuim ir'd j»ihlic((tkih is 1)0. is not «liroctlyiiHVct- ollo\v« it. I/iiil.,yi. sin<^lo I'ojiy only, of , book, is a m'licnl n sncli a cast', il' its las posst'ssion ot" all (1 of the nianiiscriiit re print ctl, tind wish. e pnldication, Imvs before it Ims lurn on tlie same footing )arto(l with it. Tliat tho purchasiT in;\y ake no rational dif- impression on the nay en.ablc him to cation. Ibid., 91. New ArrucATioN-, ground of a patent. ]\IS. (App. Cas.)- K C, 1841. one be not new, the UKISSITK OF PATENT, A. on WIIBN; RT WHOM; rOR WHAT. intt'iit witli whii'h the act ii» done, ean- ,,ot entitle it to t\ patent. //>/»/. .1. A purpcme Ih not putenlalde; lint the niaehinery only, if now, by \vlii< li it in to lio aecoinplislieil. In oilier words, the lliiiiK il'^tilf which is patenteil, must b« new, antl not tho nieru application „t' it to :i new purpose or object, /tiini is not to be itcrfornied— If their pur- lHt»f is ilKfereiit, and iheru \* nn iib'nti- ty of olyeet or effeet, they are not iib-n- licjil. Hiinnj, F.x jKirt>\ MS. (.\pp. ('as.)-.Muiisi;i,i,, .1.; I). (!., IH.'.K. It. The object and pnrjioso of two in- ventioUH may be referred to and taken into consideration in determiniie' tliu V. Siiuillwooil, '1 Story, 41 1, -Siouv, j ipiestion of identity between them. J.; Mass., IH4:«. 4. The application of u known thinj; 10 II new purpose, as the use of rivets to fiisten parts of a shoe, instead of sew- in", tliouy;li siicli particular parts of the i-lioe liad never before lieen ho fastened, is not the subject of a pjitent. Ifiiz. The mere applieatioti of an ohl nin- ehinc to a new purpose, is not patent- able. 'I'likr V. 7>«'>v//, 1 Code Kep., :)(). -MiC.v'i.Kii, J.; La., 1H4H. (j, A new application of a known liiinciplc to a new and UHcful purpose, hy new mechanieal contrivances and ap- paratus, as the application of tlu; princi- ple of the expansive and eontraclin*; piiwer of a metallic rod, by dillerent degrees of heat, to reijulato the action of the damper of and the heat of a com- mon stove, is the subject of a patent. Yooti V. »S<7%, 1 IJlatchf., 404.— Nkl- soN',J.; N. Y., 1849. 7. The application of a thing .already known, to a new and useful pm-pose, may be the subject of u patent provided the new use is not analogous to the old, and requires tho exercise of the inven- tive faenlties. Whmns v. Sc/wner. <{; Tmj Ji. li., 2 Blatchf., 29:J.— Con'k- Lixci, J.; X. Y., 1851. 8. Although two machines may bo (•iniilar in appearance and arrangement, if the conditions under which they are toad arc not alike — if the same service Where (heir object and purpose are en- tirely ditVereiit, and material advantages result trom om> inv«'ntion, it will lie pat- entable, though it may have suine re- Si'iiiblanccs to the other. Jiitrntoir, /vie jhtrfi'y .MS. (App. Cas.) — Mouhki.i., .1.; I). C, iHdo. 10. The pm'poso or object had hi view bv an invention, m:iv be considered in dcteiinining the (pieslion whether it i.-i identical with another invention. Iloyf, Ex. piii't>\ .MS. (App. Cas.) — Mokhkm., J.; I). C, 1800. 11. 'I'lie mere use of a mechanical struetui , before applied to a partitMilar purpose (as a valve used on railw.-iy lo- comotives), for a. dift'crent imipose, is not patentable ; but if the valve be so changed as to bo applicable to all en- gines, and jiroducing a new ami useful result , it is a patentable subject. Jiidson v. Jfoore, MS. — Leaviit, J. ; Ohio, 1800. REISSUE OF PATENT. A. "WlIEM MAT BE HAD; BY WHOM; FOIl WHAT CI 2 D. Action of Commissioser ix Ca.ses op 017 C To UE FOU SAME I.VVESTIO.V AS THE Original C13 D. Vauditv and Force of, and Rights CONFERRED BY C23 'III' ii ^'M r . ' ;''*%^ y^ 019 TlF.TSSrK OF PATKNT, A. I when; iit WHOM; ron what '■*■■' -»,; I]. KrrRfT or, on ANaiuNKieii, and Otii- KM, AND TIIKIII UlOIITI tINDKR 035 A, WiiKN MAY itK had; iiy whom; K«Ul WHAT. Hue also Kkihhuk, U. 1. A tlffcctivo patt'iit Timy l»o »iirroii- (Icrcd aixl a iu>\v pati'iit takt'ii tor tlic utic\|iiri' to the ]>atentee in takinj^ it out: but the second patent shouhl only be for the unexpired balaiuu' of the fourteen years. Jfinris v. Ilnntimjtuny 1 Paine, 3'>r), ;t:>(l.— TnoMi'soN, J.; X. Y., IH24. !J. Previous to the act of 18;it5, a pat- entee liad tho right to surrender his patent and tako out a now one, and on a trial tho now patent was to be con- sid«'red in the same light as if no other liad been issued. Grant v. Maaon, 1 Law tfc Int. Rev., 22. — Thompson, J. ; N. Y., 1828. 4. A patent may bo surronderod and a new ono taken, inchiding an addi- tional improvement, and bearing the sanao dato with the original patent. Anon., 2 Opin., 456. — Taney, Atty. Gen., 1831. 5. Under the patent act of 1703, the Secretary of State had power to receive a surrender of a patent, cancel the rec- ' the ujiexpired portion of the term, w||,,n the defect in the Hpecillcatiun aru>(i. iV,,,,, miittaki*, without fraud or mUnini|i„.| of tin* pat«'nttte. Hr con. sidcred as appended to the ori^fiiinl nr,. plication. >'';i. rilitlll'lll CXl'Clllinii VI by thi> fiovini- . inventor. Hi'ul., n (li'f»'Ctivi« jiatt'iit llu> (IfpurliiHiit "t" H'W OXW. 'I'llf MiW i» llic ori<.;in;il tiiiis iciitioii in;iy lie cdii. I to the ori<;iii!il \\\i- Coi>pet\ 7 1VI.,:!1I, Slip. Ct., 1H3;I. I! ri^hl ofii|i;iti'iitiT tivi' pjitont ami take J is no dirtVrciict' 111'- iilli-n. //uW.. :iU. )f !v piiti'iit cannot f tlio psitcnt and ol). i\it tlie oooiiiTatimi Intt'C. TIic assjiincc invention, as spcci- |)ci'ilication: no one nsolf can make tlio '<)iille nnder the patent act, as well by an exeesH of elaiiu as by ;i (ji'lcct in the mode of Htatin^ it. Ihiil., 4:10. 14. Ihit the inventor in always at lib- crlv,iii li renewed patent, to on>it a part lit' liis ori<;inal invention if lie deems it ( \|(cdiciit, and to retain that part only nt'liisorii^inal invention whieli he deems it tit to retain. //>/ of an extemled term, and at any time during snch term. W'ilnon \. /inHsiuii, \ I low., «HH.— Nklhon, .r.; Snp. Ct., IHI.'i. ID. The mode of issning one set of new letters patent, for two or nu»re dif- ferent terms bt-fore existing, is t)f doubt- ful legality. The better mode would bo to renew each separately, or renew only the old letters and tlu-ir specification, and let the others bo cured or aided by relation back to the original one. Wood- worth v. lftii|t>r niiit r«*iNNUi> un- der ^ la of iIk- iii't of |h:|i(, of 11 |iiit«'iit which hii«t ht'iii <<\triiih-\|iir«-il for which the orit;iiial puU'iit wan ({niiitcd," in the if'.iiliM' of tho tWfiity.om< yiMirw. The iiiih'i| imfcril of twcrity-oiic years i", lliHiu'h caxi', to \n> rcjxanh'il a^ tlii> "orig- itial patent" within thi> tneaniii^ of g |:i. ()lU>Hi,n V. IIiiirlH, I lUatchf., ItllK— Nkihun, .r.; N. v., IHKI. 'J.'l. The Hiirn'iiih'r and ri'iMs\n' of a pah-nt, extt'tided hy act of ('onj^reN.n t(» twt'tity-t'ij^ht yearn, atU-r it had hcoii previously extended unih'r {| IH of the mt of |M:ti( to twenty-one years, stands on tile same footing;, as if such surrender and reissue weri' made in iho ciwe o'' tlie patent for twenty-one years, or cxtt-nch'd inith-r g IS. There is no dit- ference in principli". //.•*ut that in leLfal effect, it was ii patent ft)r the residue only of tlie period miex- pired at tho time it was issued. Ibid,, 170. 2">. Tf .1 patent which lias been twice cxten(h;d is surrendered for a defective Hpecification, and few letters taken with an amended si)Ccification, they may be taken for tho whole twenty-eight years. Woodieorth v. J^dioards, ^ Wood. & Mill., 120. — WooDiiLKY, J.; Mass., 1847. 20. Though the old specification had been adjudged good, yet if defective so as to be open to litigation, and thus HnmAwhnt ••ln«»jM»ratlvi','* the Ctmutii,. Nioner may renew it, and the reiitu:)! will he of all for the twenty-eight mh. and the granting of the reiMHiied pati'i'l i'"^ viil'hiity on llittt iii'- {} l:i of tlti> it<-l of |n:I(1, i* )j;i\i>ii: I. coiiiit i^ iliiiil)t«Ml, u Hi'iKiriittt rviiuwul U To tlio |iitl«iit : 'i. To tli«' rxfctitorM iukI tdlinin- tiliU«"« iwt rliiMM«'>* «it' j'liM'n, ill which rv- iHlratorM of ihi« patt>iitt'«t afivr U\h «le« \%»iH'* iii.'iy li«) (jrntntt'il. KiiHt, wht-rt* ti (m iKilfiit «hatl \>v inofunifit'tf mu[ iio'iiliil Hi^nincnt ; ;t. To th<> iiMiii<.:iif(*, when 111 ri'UMon of n (hii't'clivu or inNtiflicioiit thrru hint lif«tn an iiNiti^nnifnt i>f tin* (|i'!«'oii rUf. I'nttn'w I/nl- of thf paliiitt't' cliiiminj^ in his own / hail or r^tiall havit u ri;;ht to 3N. W!iort>, howover, tli(lion oi' Hpecilieation \w elear uinl eiiMi* the tiHiti^nee of hiicIi a part ami the patentee l)i>(M>ine joint tiwnorMofihe (ii4tiii('t to tlescrilM> Nonie iniproveineiil pitteiit, and hIioiiM join in the ^iirreiiiler, (II' invention, yet ' ii does not tlenerilte ami if they do not, it will lie invalid, the purl itiilai" in ■ iition inteiidi-d to lie ilcm-iiiit'd, it in inopenitivu and invalid, lu'ciinlin^ tu tho Honsu of the law, and will justify u surrender and rt'i»HUo. ;)5. Tho riglit to Hiirrcnder an old |iftteiit, ami recoivo another in itH placo, was <,'ivon for tlio pnrpoHc; of »iialilinj{ tlu' patentee to j^ive a more perfect du- wripiiitii of hin invunlion, when any mistake or ovcrsiRlit w'UH conunitted in his first. O'liiellyv.Jforse, 15 How., 11:'.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., lH5a. .It;. Whether the defect bo in tho Fpocitii-ation or claim, under g 13 of tho act of IHUO, tho patentee may Hurrondcr his putciit, and by an amended speeifi- liiticm or claim, euro tho defect. When tilt' specification or claim are so vague as to bo inoperative and invalid, an amt'iulinent may give it validity, and protect he right.s of the patentee agaiiii;: suliseciuont infringementH. Jiat' tin\. Taggert, 17 How., 83. — McLean, J.; Sup. /«/. 3i». Hut a lii-enspo, or one who has had transferred to him a less or differ* out interest than either the interest in the whole pjiteiit, or an undivided [virt of such interest, or an exclusive Hecti«m- al interest, has mi legal right asiiH' 'gneo to surrender, and iv surrender without his concurrence is valid. Jlnd. 40. Under JJ 13 of the act of 1836, as to reiHsuo, the Commissioner has no pt)wer to grant a reissue to alter tho date of a previously granted antedated patent. Cu«hman, W. M. C, Ex partCy MS. (App. Cas.)— Dl'nlop, J. ; I). C, 1858. 41. The right to amend or correct tho defects, either in the description of tho Hehedule, or in the m.'ittor of tho stira- mary of the claim, by a surrender of an old patent, in order to a reissue, has its existence upon the broad principles of reason and justice, coeval with the au- thority to grant tho protective, cxclu- <=^c (» w-^i 616 inassi'K OF PATKNT, A. WIIFN; DT WHOM; rOB WHAT, 'f'5# .I'^k^' :Ste- Bive rijjlit itsi'lf. /i(ill, I'kt jHirte, 3rs. (Ajip. Cas.) — MoKsuM,, J.; ]). C, 1800. 42. Tlie ri'.nl queslioii is botweon tlu> inventor iiiul tin- publur— with tlio liiuita- tion ort'xcfption of IrauilantldiTi'ptiDii toward tlu" public — ami as to the fair a id o/J. AS. If to and sidxlivide the invention, t!ie reason is very suthcieiit and within the provision of the law al- lowing tho reissue of separate patenvs. 44. It is not necessary to justify i. reisJue, that there should have been any adjudication ujion the paient: the oath of the party as to the existence of the facts required for a reissue is enough. Ibid. 45. The statutes as to reissues are not to be considered as restraining, but as confirmatory of the princi|)les laid down by the Supreme Court in Jiattinw Tag- gcrt, 17 How., 83. Ibid. 46. Upon a reissue ." party may claim that which in his original application he had disclaimed, provided the error arose from inadvertency, accident, or mistake. Ilayden, Ex partCy MS. (Ap[). Cas.) — Merrick, J. ; D. C, 1800. 47. A statement in an original patent that a part is old, or a disclaimer of a part, does not necessarily prevent such part being claimed in a reissued patent, though it seems it would have that ef- fect if made advisedly, and not bj in- advertence, accident, or mistake. Laid- ley V. James, MS. (App. Cas.)-J{E,t. ni( K, J.; 1). C, 1800. 48. ^ 13 of the act of ISHO, gives f„ the patentee a right to correct his do- seription or specification, when its im- perfection has arisen from inadvcrtcncv accident, or mistake. 'Mojfitt \, Han MS. — LioAvrrr, J.; Ohio, IHOO. 4!). liut the only condition on wliidi th's can be done is, that the original patent is i/i opera tire or invalid by ri'a- son of a failure to comply with the iv- (piirements of the statute. The pro. ceeding is therefore equivalent to a I distinct admission, made in the most solei I form, that the patent has no validity in the sense of eiititliiii; a pat- entee to an action for its infringement Jhid. 50. \(\ ajiplication for a reissue in;;v be made by the assignee of iui ori<,'in;!i inventor. Selden, Assignee ]\IS. (App. Cas.) — ^foRSKLL, J.; I). C, 1801. 51. Ui)on an ai)plication for a reissue under § 5 of the act of 1837, asking fur s'everal reissued patents, each division or separate patent asked for, is not such a separate case as to require the pay- ment of ^25,00 on an appeal to tlio judges ; but one appeal carries up tho lohole case, not a i)art ; and notwith- standing that separate reissued jiateiils may be granted. Ibid. 52. Under § 13 of tho act of 18.10, but one reissued patent was allowable, but the party obtaining such reissue had the right of division of the subject, in liis specification, that he now has. Ibid. 53. The disclaimer of part of an in- vention, provided such disclaimer arose from inadvertency, accident, or mistake, will not prevent the patentee from em- bracing the part so disclaimed in a reis- sue of his patent. Ilayden, Ex parte, *%>^V,.. tho act of 1830, It "Nvas allowublo, ing sucli reissue on of the subject, hat lie now has. of part of an in- 1 (lisclaiiner arose klent, or mistake, )atentee from ein- cluinied in a reis- ayden^ Ex portc, llEI^SUE OF PA'PKNT, H. 617 I'OWKIW or COMMIHStONRR IS CAHRS Or. jIS. (App. CuH.) — Mkkkkk, J.; D. C 18(10. in t'acli c.'isc, wlictlier tlin orror lias arisi'n from iiimlvertoncy acrideiit, or 54. Iiiaadvert-,is re-examinahlo elsewliere unless ini- oiitiy made, that lie is a citr.eii of the peaehed on aeeonnt of frauid., 744. ;j. The Commissioner is presumed, in issjiing new letters i»atent, to have dis- eharged his duty faithfully and cor- rectly. Alien V. /Hunt, 2 Wood. & 'Shu., 1 .18. — WooDUi' UY, J. ; Mass., 1 840. 4. The issuing of new letters patent by the Connnissioner of Patents, with an amended specification, is to be pre- sumed to' have been done correctly, on account of mistake or inadvertence in the description or specification for tho same invention. Ibid., 139. 5. lint snch inference or presumption in respect to identity is open to be con- tradicted by ))ro))er evidence, which should be submitted to the jnry. Ibid., 139. 0. The action of the Commi.^sioncr of Patotits in the reissue of letters patent, is not re-examinable elsewhere, nnless a clear case of frand is made out. JMi/ V. Goodyear, MS. — Guikk, J. ; N. J., 1850. 7. It is the duty of the Commissioner of Patents to see that a reissued patent does not cover more than the original one. And it is to be presumed that it does not nntil the contrary appears. O'Jieilli/ V. Morse, 15 How., 112.— Ta- ney, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. United States, is void and not voidabh ouh-. The true representation of citizen- ship, is ^ condition precedent to tho is- sue of the ]>atent. Mini'n Asttif/nee, v. Addfns, 3 Wall., Jr.— GitiKK, J. ; Pa., 1801. 50. Such a mistake does not fall with- in such " defective or insuflicicnt de- scription or specificatiini'' as will allow tho Connnissioner, mider ^ 13 of the patent act of .Tnly 4t)i, 1830, to receive !i surrender of the old patent and grant II reissiio. Ibid. r)7. Neither has that officer any such iiilicrent or judicial power as will, inde- pontlently of tho act, enable him to fii 618 IJKISsrK OP PATENT, C. TO IIK KOIl HAHK INVKN TION AS TIIR ORIOINAL. >;^. 8. TIh' proccodings before the Com- missioiuT ui' I'litcMts, in tho surrt'iidcr and reissue of u patent, are not open for consideration except on the f^romid of frand. Jiuffi'n v. Taijuert, 17 IIriority of invention, laches, or any oth- er legal cause which, on an original ap- plication, would lead the Conunissioner to refuse a ])atent. Wiltton v. SuKjcr^ ^IS. (App. Cas.).— DuNi.oi', J. ; d! C, 1800. C To BE FOE SAME T.VVKNTIOX AS THE OiUUIXAL. 1. Evidence is admissible to show that there are material differences be- tween an original and a reissued patent, and to ex])lain these differences. Phil. cO Tre». 11. 11. Co. V. Stimpson,\AVvi., 462.— Stoiiy, J.; Sup. Ct., 1840. 2. The question whether the origmal patent and the reissued one are or are not identical, for the satne invention, is one which belongs to the province of a jury to decide, and with which the court will not meddle. Carver v. Brain- tree Maiiuf. Co.y 2 Story, 441, 442.— Stokv, J. ; Mass., 184.'K .n. Whether a reissued patent is huI,. stantinlly for a different invention tVom the first patent is a (pieslion of fact fur a jury: but as by g 1.1 of the act of 18;J0 the Commissioner of Patents is authorized to issue a renewed patent the in the fuinu'ss of (jnostion of fraud hnpaon v. M'lsi- , 404.— McLeax, specification do- iprovonient from iced in the orii^- patent Avill not il. For tlio pur- , if no more, the en to l»o thesumc the Coniniissionor ?'n\eii by jjraiitiiit; Mercrr, 4 West. K, J.; ]*a., iHlij. It is presnniod to 3ntion .IS that in- ])atent. But such tion in respect to contratlictoJ by 1 should he sub- llen V. lilutit, 2 — WoonnuKY, J.; ejT.iUy take out a \ novo than is dc- .M-ed ])atent, if it actual discovery t was taken out. lir. Tat. Off., 14G ; N. Y., 1847. nt, granted upon jrmer patent, can invention claimed Battin v. Tiig- TO IIH FOR HAUU INViCNTIO.V AS THE ORIOINAI.. qert, 2 Wall., Jr., 102. — Kanu, J. ; Pa., 18j1. 8. Where, therefore, a patentee in his patent <^raiited in 184!1, specified his invention to be for tlu> niiuiTUM- in vvliich lie had arr^mjMl ami vtunhiiied rertalii vdi'tK, hut did not specify th;it he had inrenti'd ftny of 8U<'h parts, thouj^h in f.jct such was tlie e;is»', and al\er\vard, in IS4!), surrendered Ins patent and took out !i new one, in which he tdaiiiied u i)articular part, Jfilif, that the purt claimed in the reissued ))at- pnt, haviiiiX been in use for si.v years hcfore it was claimed, had become pid»- lic, and could not Ir* reclainu'd by the reissued i>atent of 1849. Iil>id., 102. [Reversed, ;>o,«»< 15.] 9. 5$ 13 of the act of IH.SO, allowin presiuned thui the re- issued patent does not cover more* than the origin.-d one. G'/ici/fy v. Mori*i\ 15 How., 112.— Tank Y, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., lH.-).3. l.'K Variations from the description given in the former specificMtion do not necessarily imply that it is for a difierent discovery, as the right to surrender is given for the i)urpose of enabling the patentee to give a more perfect descrip- tion (»f his invention, wlivn any mistake or oversight was commif'tt'd in the first. It necessarily varies from it. Tbid., 112 14. The reissuecl ]>atijnt must be foi the same invention substantiallv, thoujrh it be described in terms more precise and accurate thiui in the former patent, liut a new ami diU'eriiit invention c.in- not be claime '"'■"iW»''i *'»^' ,«/wiiB/Wi»*^' ■^^f If' u 620 KKISSFK OF PATENT, C. TO BB rOR 8\U8 IK^KNTION AS THE OUIOINAL. fill P tlJr priviU'go the law gives by means of tlic reissue is to roctily any errorB or tli'ficii'iu'ii's ill tlio first spocificatioii. /Smith V. Iliyijina, IMS. — JJkits, J. ; N. Y., 1857. 19. Tlic legal presumption is, from the action of the Patent Otlice, that a reissued jjatent is for the same inven- tion as the original jtatent. Hi(8se)f V. MrCo)'mick\ MS. — McLkan, J.; 111., lH.-)9. 20. With respect to reissues, § 1 3 of the act of 1 S'M ami g 5 of the act of 1837 are to be taken together in con- stniction, ami the most just and equita- ble extent to which the terms of the law in its true spirit will admit of ought to be adopted. J3((ll,E,r parte, MS. (App. Cas.)— MoKSKi.r, J. ; I). C, 1800. 21. If the patent is defective or in- sufKcient, either in the specification or claim, the patentee has a riglit, if he desires it, in the absence of fraud and deception, on complying with the other requisites, to have a reissue of jiat- ents for each distinct and separate part, cttectually to cure the defect in the mode of stating it. Ibid. 22. And he has a right to restrict or enlarge his claim so .as to give it op- eration and to effectuate liis invention. Ibid. 23. The patentee, in his reissue, is entitled to every advantage within the full scope of his invention. Ibid. 24. And on an application for a reis- sue, a new function developed by the combination of different elements of the invention, will not be considered new matter. Ibid. 25. Upon an application for a reissue, the original model may be referred to as evidence of the extent of the true in- vention, and the patentee is not neces- sarily confined to the original record, i. t'., the patent and specification, of hjs first patent, as would seem to have been the ])raetice of (he Patent Ofilce, uiidt'i its rule 44. Ibid. 20. If there is a defect in the orig- ine pat- ented when the original ])ateiit was granted. The only limitation in llio statute is, that the invention should be the same. Dyson, Ex parte, ]MS. (App. Cas.)— Duxi.op, J. ; D. C, 1800. 29. The legislature has not said by what proof the applicant shall show th.at his invention, claimed on reissue, is the same invention made and inteiultd to be patented on his original a])plica- tion. He is not limited by the statute to prove it by the specification, models, or drawings ; any legal proof to show it to be the same invention, whether found in the record or aliunde, ought to be received and weighed by the Patent Office. Ibid. 30. No authority is given to the Pat- ent Office to limit the range of the ap- plicant's proof, if it is such as upon the UKISSUK OF PATENT, C. 021 TO UK roil flAMt! INVKHTION AS TUB ORIGINAL. given to the Pat- range of the ap- such as upon the law of ovidonco is Ijolil Hiifticiont to prdvc t'-M-in before other lej.»al trihunalw. Jbid. ;il. An original ai)|)lii'ant has no right, by law, to an aineiulniu'iit of his speci- iiciition, except by § T of the act of 18:t0, to eonforni his Kpeeifu-ation to tiic alterations suggested by the C'oin- iiiissinniT. But an ainendinent in the case of a reissue is ditt'erent ; it is not oigriU'Ci but oi right. Ibid. 3*2. §1-'^ does not point to the model and drawings as the koU means of proof, or to any means of proof; the whole mutter of proof is left at large. It re- quires thiit the invention sought to be introduced in the amended specification, should be the aame invention originally iutendeil to be patented, and is silent as to hoic that is to be ascertained. Ibid. 33. The applicant is to prove the in- vention sought to be covered by liis re- issue, to be the same intended to be originally patented, but the quo modo of proof is not defined, and of course it is open to the patentee to oft'er any sufficient legal proof, record or other- wise. Ibid. 34. The gist of the applicant's inven- tion was to give a differential motion or variable speed to the stripper so called, by which at one time, the stripper, by having a motion faster than the main cylinder, cleaned the main cylinder of the cotton imbedded in it, in the pro- cess of carding, and then when the stripper was filled with the cotton, its movement Avas rendered slower than that of the main cylinder, by Avhich such main cylinder became the stripper of the stripper, and these changes were made without stopping the machine; but the original specification described ouly the/as^ movement of the stripper, aud not the slow motion ; Ileld, on an application for a reissue, that the appli- cant could go outside of his original specification and the ■■( 622 KKISSUE OF PATENT, D. AumoniTY or, and hiohts ooNriRHio bt. tlio Mulijcct of !i reissue. J)y»ini v. (iinnhril lO Itntyte, MS. (App. Cus.) — IJi.M.or, J.; D.'C, IHOl. ;M). Tilt! i'iisos of Jiitttin V. T'lt/i/ert, 17 llnw., H5 (1854), iuid Carver v. lirtitntrce Mann/. Co., 2 Story, 441 (|h4:<), do not siistiiiii the position tliat tlie (pii'stion wlictlicr n rcissiUMl patt'iit is for tlie saini' invention as the original l)atcnt, i.s one of liict, which can ofili/ be determined by a jury. The power of a eourt of ecpiity to pass npon sneli faet is not touched by tlieni. I*oppcii- heuaen v. Falke^ MS. — Siiipman', J. ; N. Y., IHOI. 40. If, however, siicli question is in- volved in considerable doubt, that nn<^ht be a reason wl.y it should bo sent to a jury. Ihid. 41. Though the decision of the Com- missioner of Patents that the reissued ])atent is for the same invention as the original, is, as a general rule, at least prima facie evidence of its truth, it is not conclusive when doubts are raised in the minds of the court by an examin- ation of the instruments themselves. Ibid. D, Validity and Force of, and Rights confekkkd by. See also Reissue, B. 1. Whether a reissued patent confers any right is a question for judicial deci- sion. 'ino)i., 2 Opin., 450. — Taney, Atty. Gen.; 1831. 2. In the case of a surrender of a pat- ent for a defect arising from inadvert- ence and mistake, and a reissue, the new patent and the proceedings on which its issues have relation to the original transaction. The time of the privilege still runs from tlie date of the original patent. The application may be con- sidered as appended to the original !i|). plication. The second [latent caiitiot in any respect be considered as indciiciiil- ent of the first. (Jrant v. liayitminl^ o Pet., 244. — AIausiiali-, Ch. J. j Sup. C'l., 18:12. 3. A reissuetl patent granted upon the surrender of the Hrst one is only ;i continuation of the original patttit. A)iivH\. Iluwanl, 1 Sunin.,488. — Stouv .1.; Mass., I8;j.3. 4. A reissued j)atent has relation to the original transaction of the issuing; of the tirst patent ; and being only a cdti. tinuation of the first one, tiie rights of the ttatentee are to be ascertained liv tin' law tinder whidi the original Mp|ili. catiftn was made. Sh(tw v (Joopi)", 7 Pet., 315. — IVIcLean, J. ; Sup. (!t., 1833. 5. Under § 1 3 of the act of 1 8;iO, a second patent witli corrected specifiia- tions has relation back to the emanation of the first patent, as fully for every le- gal purpose, as to causes subsecpicntly accruing, as if the second patent had been issued at the date of the first one. Stanley v. W/njiple, 2 McLean, a7.— McLkax, .T. ; Ohio, 1839. 0. The second patent legalizes the rights of the patentee from the date of the first patent. Ibid., 38. 1. If a patent which was invalid by reason of a defective specification, is surrendered, .and a new one taken out, the second patent relates back to the date of the original patent. ^S)ni(h v. Pearce, 2 McLean, 170. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1840. 8. It is not necessary that a reissued patent should contain any recitals that the prerequisites to the grant of it— as that it was reissued for errors arising not from inadvertency, accident, or mis- take — have been duly complied with, for the law makes the presumption that ^^. UKISSUE OF PATKNT, I). 023 Al'TKORITT or, ANH RKIIITH CONrKRKKI) IIT. llicy liuvt! biH'ii. /'A/7. <£• 7'r«. Ji. li. V. .Stinijmin, 14 I'et., 458. — Stouv, J.; Sup. Ct., 1810. 9, Tlui prt'.siiinptioii of li^lit in n jcit- I'ntoe, bociiuso of thii iu^inii'sci'iico of tlu> |iubliu ill luN claim, is not ('li.'m<;(Ml in coiisiMiucnce of th« ori);iii:il i>att'iit lu'iii^ suriTiidiMXHl on acooiiiit of its iii- foriii:ility. Tlio orijjfiiial patent was not voiil, but was efficacious to preserve tlie ri"iit of the i»atentee, wliich would have IttH'ii lost liatl the invention been used witliout a patent. Orr v. Jhidi/er, "i Law Kep., 408. — SiMiAdi K, J. ; Mass., 1844. 10. The grant of an amended p.'ileni by the Comniissu)ner of I'atents, is con- clusive as to the existence of all the facts necessary for a reissue, unless it is ap- iiaront on the face of the patent itself, without any auxiliary evidence, that he was guilty of a clear excess of authority, or that the patent was procured by fraud between him and the patentee. Allen V. Blunt, 3 Story, 745. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1845. 11. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents, in accepting the surrender of an old and granting a new patent, is not rc-examinable elsewhere, unless it is apparent from the face of the i)atent, that ho has exceeded his authority, or there is a clear repugnancy between the old or new patent, or the new one has been obtained by collusion between the Commissioner and the patentee. Wood- worth V. Stone, 3 Story, 753, 754. — Story, J.; Mass., 1845. 12. No prior use of a defective patent can authorize the use of the invention after the emanation of a renewed pat- ent. Any person using an invention protected by a renewed patent, subse- quently to the date, is guilty of an in- fringement, however long he may have used the same atYer the date of the de- fective and surrendered pati'Ut. Sti/np- Hiin V. WtHt C/tiKter Ji. A'., 4 I low., 4()'J, 4o:i.— M( Lkan, J.; Sup. Ct., 1815. 13. The decision of the officers of the government in gr.tnting a renewed pat- ent, by reason (»f a defective or insuffi- cient hp 'citication, ifec, is prhna fiu'le. evidence that the claim for a renewal was within the statute; and conclusive, except as to fraud. The incpiiry as to the surrender, is limited to tin; fairness of the transaction. Stinijison v. Went Ji. Ji., 4 How., 404.— McLean, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1845. 14. In whatever manner the ni'-tako or inadvertence may have occurred is immaterial. The action of the govern- ment in renewing the patent must bo considered as closing this point, and as leaving ojK'n for inquiry the ivhiittrd l>y cvhlfiic*'. .1/- hn V. hioit, •-' Woo.l. & .Mill., l;Jl>.— AV<»t)i»iiruv, J. ; Mass., 184(1. 111. Itiil ulirllicr tlu> ilccisidii of the CttinmissioiH'r is c«)iifliisivi' to tlu' «'.x- U'lit l.'iitl down in Allni v. Jilunt, •'! Sto- ry, 74.') {nHte 10); qiurif. Ihid.^ \M). 20. Wlit'tlitM- II rt'issucil [latent may tniiti! Hi'Vi'ial lii't'oiv cxistiim ti'rnis — as ti'iins of fonrtcon and sevi-n, ami scvon years, in one patont^ for twonlyi'iijlit yi'ars; t/mn/. Womlworth v. Hull, 1 Wood. & Alin., 400. — Wooom iiv, J. ; 1840. 'Jl. If sndi a renewal is void, tlio Hnr- I't'ndur of the former patents is likewise void, l»nt perhaps recoveries may be had on the original patents, as if never attempted to be consolidated. Ibid., 400. 22. Sneh a consolidated reissue was upheld by the Supreme Court, 4 How- ard, U40, M'ilson V, liosac((u, but no ob- jection was there raised to Huch a pn-c- tice. IhuL, 400. 23. If a renew.'U is not valid, the sur- render which led to it will also be in- valid, and the old letters ■will be con- sidered in full force, and violators may be jH'osecuted under such old jiatent, with the old specification. Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 Wood. & Min., 127. — WooDHURY, J. ; Mass., 1847. 24. Whenever the power of reissue lias been fraudulently or corruptly abused, the renewal Avill be avoided. Ibid., 120. 25. Upon the surrender and reissue of a patent, the corrected patent is made to all cases of infringement sub- sequently accruing, as though it haii been so issued originally, and even though the original patent was invalid. Sloomcr V. StoUey, 5 McLean, IGG. — McLeax, J.; Ohio, 1850. 2(J. In ordinary oaseH «»f reissue, the C-ommissioner's action has more limn priiHii J'lirie influence in «leeidiiivf the • piestion of identity of in\eiilinii. J']ni,/t V. Ji(>i/eri, MS. — Kank, .1.; I 'a,, im:,| 27. A reissued patent is not void, lie. cause the things claimed in tlie otijiriniil had been in public use in the iiit*'i-\;tl between the original and reissiieij pat- ent. Such a publication is not an aliaii- donment or dedication. (I'oix'ycurx, A///, MS.— DicKKUsoN, J. ; N..I., iH,"):'. 28. The fact of procuring a paicni for a new and iisefid machine, luiilertlu' ass\imption of n reissue, which was iidt useful as patented in the surremlciitl patent, for want of some parts, used in the reissued patent. Mould present a question of fraud, comniittecl on tin; public by the patentee, by giving his re- issued j)ati'nt date as an original dismv- ery, ma(1 ill tilt' ()i'i;riiiiil in till' intt-n:il iikI rcissnt-il \k\[- III is not an ulcui- 111. iloix'yair v. ^,J.; N.Jm IHW. K-nrint? ii itat(-Mt liu-hiiit', umli-rtlic II', whifli was not tlio Hurrt-nili'it il line parts, nst-d in wtmld int'sciit a uiiiniitt«-il on \\w. I', by j^ivin^liiHrc- lui oi'ij^inal tliscov- 111' of thi' oripiiiil )vi'r-rt-ai-liing Mini- bt'twi-i'ii tlio timo uii'l tho tinio of lirooks V. Fhke^ HON, J.; Sup. Ct., nt, ■wliii'liliiisbcoii surrender of the g 13 of the acti»f alent, nor ilocs it islinct rijrlit; ami -Diu-erning the yW- surrender, applies d patent. McBur- Cush., 571.— Mek- 5. rkcd and well roc- letwcen a renemd The former grants :he latter legalizes It during the con- final terra. Ihid., irrKiT or, a« -to AHHtoNrtH, anu tiiiih niaiiTN tNHKR. 31. A roiitraet eonceriiliij^ a put cut, niailc lit-foro itsHiiri'i-nder, appru-s i>«ionH ure th(> propvrty of the pultlic, and thereforo ure nut lli.. Huiiject of ji ,-opyrighl. Little v. f/of//,/, 2 Itlatcbf., 302.— Nki-hon, J.; >f. y' 18A2. uks'ii;aint of tuade. 1. An agreement between Iwoimrt- ners in the manufacture of a p;it('iit((| article, that one would tliscontinue mikIi matiufacture, is not void as bi-iiig in ro. Htraint of trade, and iigaiiist the pririci. ph-H of pul»li(! I )iicy, but is siniplv ;in ordinary business arrangement. /' not tlm . IAnU<\. HiU'h (»'ul UH W\\\^ in ro. i\y!\Ui»l tli«» iiriiici. ^', but is siiiijily :ii\ ranf^i'inoiit. Vnd- 1 Uliitflif., 4ltr).- , 1849. [Afliniu'.l, () n pfttontoeby one 111 ft ]»iit<-'nt, comli- nt, duriiiir llic fon- lit, iimmiliicturi' or ,rticl(', is iiol voiiliis ■ triido. Bawj v, li'l)., aG7.— .loxKS, tipuliitlng, that nn- )nM, tine party t*li!>ll irt! of a pati'iUctl ;ir- ln'iug ill rostvaiiit of rt but a provision tor he bnsiuoss in a iiiii- uot I'or its reslraiiit. lurat, 10 How., 293. Ct., 1855. iULT. ," PcnrosE. REVIEWS.— UULK8 OF TATKNT OKFIOK. «J7 Wlllty rtMCT, WHIN MOt. ACTIIOHITT or. UKVIK\V8. I. A rcvicwiT nmy fuirly rlto lar^fly fidtn till' iiri){iiiiil work, it' Imm «K>.ii^ii bi> naily mxl truly to umu (ho pUHHuj^fM for the |iurpo'4<' of fair and ruaMiMiablit criti- cimii. H>il it' lu> tlius<-ilrs iIm> inimt iin- iiortniit parts ci' tli«> work, with a view, ii(»t to critici/A', but to ttupi-rwdo thf UM'oflhi' original work, an I NiiliMtitulf till' review for it, Mueh a use will be dfeiued, ill lnw', a piraey. I'uinmi v. .'/■»r«/i, •-' Story, loO. — Sioky, J. ; MasM., 1641. i, Extraets, repreHoiitinixorcinbody- iii;,' llie spirit and force of a work, may In- taken therefrom to a reasonable ox- liivt hy a reviewer, for tli« purpose of sliowin^j tliu merit or di-rnerit of tlie work. Hut this privilejjo eaniiut be so oxiTcised as to supersede the orij^inal book. StiU'y V. Jf. the same knowl- i'ili;c (lie orij;iiial work, it is an ac- tioiiiilile violation of literary property. //»<■(/., ;I09, .310. ■'). Tlio abridgement of a work, for wliirli a copyright has been secured, and wliicli lias been ])ublicly circulatcMl, is not an iiitVingement of the statutory |irivil('gp; but such :ui abridLTcment ivould violate the right of the literary proprietor of a book of which the cir- '.'ulation had beeu private only. Kccite V. \y/iftitlci/, ti .Vnier. I^rtw Itejj., 8'i,- CAItWAI.I.AhiCIt, J. i I'u., iHtiO. KlILKS OF I'ATKNT OFFICE. 1. The nih'H of t1i« Patent Office at to taking evidence in contested caso% made by the ('omniisKioner of I'atentH, imiler i; 12 of the act of 1k:i(), wliiiu they re'iiaiii uiiabrogalen' are as bind* ingaMlhelaw itself; and upon the Coiii- misxioner himself, as upon others. Ar- mil'f V. /tig/inp, MS. (A pp. CaH.)— ('iiA\«ii, Vh. J.; 1). C, l»4l. 2. After a deposition lias Iteeii (;iken, wliih- the rules were in ftu'ce, a revoca- tion of them <'annot atVcct that deposi- tion. A revoc.'itioa only alVccts Hubse- queiit proceedini^s. lf'i/Mi^' ^^-^MV..' '■m^^-^-^ •911 ttlbCUIvT UHK OF INVKNTIOy. Oft •igS^ roini'ii, unit U pri'Mt'iit, nini croiiN-<>xmii- iiicN, iiotii'H itiitl pnuir of MTvli'o of it nrc of no urcniinl, tiihfm V. /'JtlithorjH', MS. (Aj,|». CunO-lH^Lof, J.; D. C, I). Tlio rtiloM mill ro^ulntiimii of tlii' I'atiMit Otflcc, HM to Inking tcMtiinotiy in v:\nvn of inltffcrt'hrv, iiri' Mmlinu upon the |>tirti«"<, nnntitluil to lliv lii'iii'titH of tticiii, mill until ahm^nluil, ui'L> iiM iiiniliii^ iipoti the Ci MiniMMioiit>r liiiufii'lt', iiH if cniiftt'il I»y tlip Htiituti' if- w'lf. ()'//,irit V. //,iw,>i, !\fS. (App. t'un.)~MonMi.:i,i, .1,; I). C, iHrtO. 7. Tlip niU'H of tlic I'litont t)fllc>i«, nn to tlit> t.'ikin^ of i|«>p(milioLiM, ^iv(> to ciliifr of tlu) litigant parli«'«, tlif liylit to taku ilipiisitioiiH, irithout trutnti/it, up to till' (lay of lii'arin^ llxivl hy tln' I'ati-nt Otlli't', or to » ilay near I'lioiij^li to jfivo tiini- for tlu' trariMmissioii of the ovitli'Mfc to tlic I'ati'tit Ollii'o. SptKr v. Ahfxilf, .MS. (App. CaH.) — DiNMU', .1. ; D. C, lHr)i). 8. Tho power grantcil to the I'at* nt Oni.M', imilcr 5^ VI of the art of IH.'IK, to inal< "uU's in respect to the takiny of eviilence, givoH no rijjjht to make new rules of evidence, or to maki- new rules of law, or to divert vested rij^hts, by its rules of praetiee. Dijm7i, A'x fnirfe, ISIS. (App. Cas.)— DuNi.oi', J. ; D. C, 1800. 0. The 20th rule of tho Patent OfTlee, j)rovidiiii^ that amendments of the mod- el, drawinj^s, or speeifieation, nnist re- late to the Kuhjeet matter orij^inally cm- braced in at least one of them, applies only to orhjinal a])pIicatioiis, and not to cases of reissue. If it did, it would be void. Tbid. 10. The ndcof the Patent Office con- fining reissues to the invention describ- ed or shown in the origin.al patent is, cautious and general in its terras. It doeM not profimn to hi* without nn I't. oeptiori. It Ntnleit what nuiy be il,,, Nubjcot of a reiMHue; not, Mhni nIkiH not be ; and doe<« not prcMiM-ibe, llmt thr mode mentioned tlniein Hhall Im' ili,. noIm and only mode of Nhowin;/ tlii< ji, viMition to be the Manie invention. //;,/ I I. The prailiee of the Patent (»(li,, under its riili'K, an to reisxuu, of ciinrnii,!., the applicant to his ori^iiud patent an, { speeifieation, an the evideneu of «||„t was lii-« original invention, in not mr- net, but nlerenee m.iy aho bi» niiiili in the model for a like purpoi«>, //,,// A'j! juirtf^ .MS. (App. (.'aN.)~.M..iiM.i.|, .1.; I). (J., IHOO. SKCIJKT USK OF INVKNTIOX, 1. If an inseiition be the more s|)(mii. latioii of a philosopher or tnecliMiiiiiaii in his closet, and hu taken no ntep tu- ward SI curing a patont, but keeps lii< iiiventi'iii a si-cret, and another pfrsmi, Vr'ho is also an original but Huhsi'iincnt inventor of tho samo thing, (»litaiii a patent for n, juid l>ring it into use, tlie patentee in a suit at law will he m\- sitlered the fust inventor, llthlroilh V. Jftutthy MS. (App. Cas.).— Cranui, Ch. J.; I). C, 1811. 2. How far the use by tho iliscovorcr of his invention or monopoly so I()Iii,'!h it could be kept a secret, and sei-kiii;,' ;i patent only when it was in ilan^'cr ot' discovery, would invaliilate the patont, qvcnj. (tondycar v. Day, MS.— Gni- EU, J.; N. J., 1852. 3. Tho object of the patent laws Ic- ing not only to benefit the inventor hut also the public or community at Liriro, by the use of the invention after the mo i» wUh»ml an . \. lull iitiiy !'•' ili<- not, y>\u\\ xliiiil l»n'tnTiln', tliMi till' •,.|n nIiiiII 1"' iIh' il' nIiow'hi;,' iIk- in- > liivi'lllloii. /Am/, til.' riiti'iii oivi.i, 'i)4<«U«, offulirHlili.; >ri(^iiiiil pikU'iit mil cvi'W'tH'*' of what iitioii, IM not cur- ay ul^o ^1*' iiiiuli' III •> |»in'p'">»'. /^'//, I. Cat.)— Mi'i'^kii,, F INVKNTION. Vh' till' inprt' >i)i.'iMi. iliiT or iiu'cliMiiir'nm (J tiikt'H no Kti'p tih rut, but ki't'ps liit il another iit'ismi, ml but Hul>st'(|miil tliinp, <»l»t!ii"i ^ rinjx it into uho, the It law will Ih> run- i-ntor. llil'Irc'ilh .. Cas.).— <^KA^''"' m nut 1V( by the (lisoovcrcr nonoi)oly m) ioiij,'!!^ crct, ami Hrokin;; ;i it was ill ilan^'t'i" *'l' valitlatf tlio i>iitt'iit, V. I>(»y, MS.-Or,i- the patent hws U- lefit the inventor but community at liirc*', ivcntion after the iiK> bECUET UttE OF INVENT ON. 0:0 IfVMJI OK ii.iiKtly liiw turmihilril, U follown tlitii All inventor wlio iU'NiKiM'«'t»« of tlio fonnlitiilioii or a»ln of Conj^rt-on, ami it uot I'MlilliHl to favor if dnrin;; Ktii'li t'onocalMii-ftt anutlM>r poiHon nIioiiM •iimI out anil brin^ into uhu (Iiw Manio in- vention, lieiiiliill V. Winnor, •i\ llow., ;,oH.— Da^iki,, J.; Sup. Ci., Ih:.h. 4, Ifan inventor kci'p Iun iiiNt-iiiion a loiTL't until anollier Iium (liNeovcrcil lli<> KUiie tiling'. anf hin claim or uake n»»;'"'"".ion for a pat- ent, ^iucli Ili'Mt inventor will loso IiIh ii.,'ht to a i)atent. Siiiutry v. Lnxthy MS. (App. Ca.x.)— MoUMici.i,, J. ; I). C;., 1830. 5. A party has a rij^ht to keep his in- cliiiiitc rijjlit to an invention (concealed ;iH i(iii<( a>* he pleases — init when he tlc- Mivs to pcrlect his rij^ht to a patent, h«' mast proccetl with vi;,'ilanc(>. Klli- th„rih' v. liuf'i rtHon, MS. (.\pp. Cas.) -MortsKi.i., J.; I). C, IH.5H. G, The statutory bar, ^ 7 of tho act (if 18:10, imposed upon tho inventor who silU his invention for more than two \i;iiM before his application f()r a pat- iiit, would seem by analogy properly ;i|i|ilicable to the inventor who nerretcH. Sjioir v. Stuart, MS. (Aj)]). Cas.) — DlM.op, J. ; I). C, 1H50. 7. The policy of tho patent laws favors ililincnce and condemns neglect. It is the duty of an inventor without delay V) patent his perfected invention. Ho Lx«i no right to use it himself, or permit others to use it, for .any h'lirrth of time, aiul then expect a monopoly from the public. M,irvy V. Ti-ntt.r, MS. (App. Cas.) "I)lni.o|., J.; D. C., IHOO. H. There can be no doiibt that where Ik party has made an invention and bnried the xn nt in hii« own bostnn, he may, nl\i>r the la|mu of years, c«>mi' for" ward and, on ntakin^ tho Nccret known by an application for a patent, obtain a moiiopnly. Itifij V. 77iiiitlit, .MS. (.\pp, Cas.)— Mkkhk K, J.; I). C., IHiio, 0. Ibit if in till) mean time another has made the Hanie invention, mid has ol>tained a patent, and the pnlitic hai thereby become possessed of till) dls- covury, when the tlrst inventor applieM he will be met with the impiiry whether he has used duo diligence in commiini- eating his discovery — in wiich case the fu'st inventor fo>'feits his elaini. Ifn'if. 10. If an inventor C(>/(fvv//w his inven- tion idler it is complete, even llnnigli ho never sold it for protit or introdiwed it to public UHo, hu cannot claim a patent. fjoreridyti v. Dutr/iir, MS. (App. Cas.) — DuM.oi', J.; I). C, 1H(J1. 11. i\n inventor who (linii/n>'if/y,.i\ul with the view <»f applying it imlefiniti'ly and exclusively for his own profits, withholds his invention from the puo- lie, conies not within the policy or tho objects of tho constitution or acts of Congress. IIo does not promote but impedes the progress of science and the useful arts. //>/(/. 1'2. The decision in Spnir v. Stuart (ante 0), that tho conocalment of an in- vention for more than two years stands on no better footing than tho sale of such invention before two years, con- sidered and approved. Ifnd. 13. A negligence, in secreting and fail- ing to patent an invention for more than two years after its discovery, forfeits all right to claim a patent. Kvon tho filing a caveat, if filed more than two years »1'U i I /^* i,>^ SFi-;s^ .,.:^^ 'i'ii W ■■.,., m *""' ^.«mL« 030 SPK(MKIl" I'KUFOUMANCE.— SPECIFICATION, A., U. or ct)NruAci8 as to j-atknts. now UiVKNTlOX TO M DKBk'UlIIKU IS. nflcr such iliscoviTv, will not mivc the ritilits of tin' inventor. SnowJen v. Piii'iU., MS. (Apj). CiiH.) — DuNLor, J.; D. C, 1801. SPECIFIC PEUFORMANCE. 1. Till- fact, tliat till' .sulyi'ct matter of a contract sonj^ht to bo enforced is a )>at»'nt ritjlit, does not of itst-If j^ivt' tin- courts of the rnitcd Stales jurisdiction. A bill filed for the speeilic performance of such a contract must contain the ])r()per averments as to the c/idritcter of the parties, to show that the court has jurisdiction. Jliirr v. (i)rther state. Ih'nl., J7 0. And if the bill jtrays for an injiiiii. ti(m against the use of a patent, tliat may be a groimd for exercising ju- risdiction against all the defendants. rind., 38. 7. Where a bill is filed to enforce tlic specific performance of a contract in iv- lation to a patent, the Supreiric ("(inn has no appellate jurisdiction, iniless tlio matter in controversy exceeds tliovalin' of two thousand dollars. Brown v, S/uxnnon, 20 How., 50, 67. — Tandy Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1857. A. B. C. D. SPECIFICATION. Okveral Principles OF CcASTurcTioN Gllo IIOW InVKNTION to UK DKSCKIIIKI) IN. GIIO AMnioiTrY IN, AND Ekkkot of G36 (!()NOKAI,MKNT IN, AND KfFEUT OK G3G DeFKOTS I.V, HOW KEMEIJIKU 631 A. (jexeual Puincu'lks of Cox- STUUCriON. See Patent, P. 1. D. How iNVENnON TO BE DKSCBIDED IN. See also Composition op Matter, B. ; Imi'rovement, B. ; Machixi;, D. 1. Under the j-tatent act of KOS, be- fore a patent can issue, the inventor should so explain his invention, that others beside himself may unclerstaiid aod use it ; more especially when the iu- DF CoNSTHrCTION GM UKSCUIUKI) IN. G;10 KKOT OK CM KfFEUT OF 03G KDIKU 631 r TO BE DESCUIBED it act of l-iOS^e- sue, the inventor lis invention, tlut f may nnderstaml jcially when the iu- SPKCIFICATION, B. 031 now IKVKNTION TO UK DKSCUIUKO IH. vention is to ri'licvo hnujun misery, euro Hhoiiitl In* takfii to liuvt; ii plain an jcordt d au- thority, after the p... at h.is run out. Unnis v. I'Atton, ii Wash., 45;j. — WAsniN(;TON, J.; Pa., 181H. 7. Whether a patei . be valid or liOt, nuist materially depend upon the accU' racy and distnictness with which tbo in- vention is stated. Moody v. J'lske, 2 Mas., 118.— Stouv, J.; Mass., 1820. 8. A specification m-cd not particu- larly describe the oi)eration of median ism which is well known by persons ac- (piainted with the art. JuieasH v. Schuyl- kill Bank, 4 Wash., 14. — Washington, J.; Pa., 1820. 0. 3Ierely describing in the specifica- tion tho parts of a thing, or the tnodus ojwrdiidi, and as to which no claim is nuvde, does not make such things a part of the ])atent. Ibid., 14. 10. The 8i»ocilicaliou should distin- guish the new from the old, :uul point out in what the invention consists. Tho invention cannot be shown by testimo- ny, nor can the jury infer it from exam- ining the thing patented, and comparing it with others before iu use. No de- scription of the discovery secured by a patent, will fulfil the demands of justice and of law, but such as is of record, and of Avhich all the world may have the benefit. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash., 73.— Washington, J. ; Pa., 1821. 11. Where tho specification does not describe the invention, so as to show in ■—■ ■^r*'^ trJ ""■'•' «H.,« u V- 01)2 SPECIFICATION, B. now ISVKNTIUN TU UK DRHCUlllKI) IK. Aviiat r('S|u«i'|s ilif |il:iiii(ifr's invciilion or iiii|>r()Vt'iiK'M' dilU'is IVoiii wliiil Iiad liccii l)«'lort' known or ust'd, llm paf cut is voitl. Ija)iiji!oii V. A; (iroot., 1 I'a'nu", 207. — LiviNcsToN, J.; N. Y., 1HJ2. VI. Till' act of ITO.'J, )$ ;J, ri'ciiiirc'H that till' spccilicatioii iimst dcscrilu' the invention "• in sncli full, clear, and exact terms," as to distinLfiiisli the same from all tliinijs licfore known. The sjiecili- cation has two ohjccts: one, to make known the manner of coiistriictinL; tlu! invention, so as to «'nalil(^ artisans to make and use it, !uid thus to give the jiiiblie the full Ix-nctit (»f the discovery after the o.iiiiation of the palcnt. The other ulijecl is, to ywi the imhlic in pos- session ol" what the party claims as his own invciilion, so as to ascertain if he claim any tliim^ that is in common nse, or already known, and to {^uard aijainst prejudice or injury from the nse of an invention which the party m.-iy other- wise innocently snpoose not to be jiat- entcd. J'h'diiK v. Jutlon, 7 Wheat., 4^4. — SroiiY, .1.; Slip. CH., 1822. 13. A speciiication which mixes up the new and the old, but does not ex- ])lain Avhat is the nature or limit of the invention claimed, catniot be sustained. IbUl, 4.14. 14. The invention cannot bo made out and shown at the trial, or be estab- lished l)y comparing the invention spe- cified in the patent with former ones in use. IbUL, 434, 435. 15. Both the language and policy of the act of Congrtss require, that the specification should be dear, plain, and intelligible, so that others may be taught by it to make or J;i the thing for which tlic patent is granted. The object of the speciticalion is to inforni the public, af- ter the expiration of the term for which the patented is granted, what the inven- tion is; and it ought therefore to put the public in possession of whatever is necess.'iry to lh« use and enjoynieat thereof. JSulliotf/iv. licdjivUl, 1 I'ifna. 450.— Thompson, J.; N. Y., 1825. 1(1. It is a correct rule as to pulcniN that if the speciiication is sniriciintly explicit in its details to enable a skilful machinist to construct the jiatented iwi- provt-ment or invention, without any other aid, it is not to be considered void because some of the minor details of tlio machine are iu)t set forth ut large. Jiur- rail V. Jeweti, 2 I'aige, 142.— Wal- woKTH, Chan.; N. Y., 1830. 17. A patent is a b.argain with tlio public, in which the same rules of good faith jn-evail as in other contracts, ami if the disclosure coimnnnicates the in- vention to the pnblic, the statute is sat- isfied. Whitney v. Einniett^ Bald., 319. — Baldwin, J. ; Pa., 1831. 18. As the English statute does not recpiire any specification, these rules and principles are m:ittcrs of judicial con- struction, on whicli the English courts act without any statutory dire«'tion. IJiit in the I'^nited States it is diflerent, and the law is more explicit. As to the specification, nothing is left to construc- tion, as to its re(piisites or jiurjioscs, both being so clearly defined, .'uid in such a manner, as to leave no discretion in the courts to presume what was in- tended, to alter, or diminish. Ibid, 319, 320. 19. If from the p.atent, specification, drawings, model, and old machine, clear ideas are conveyed to men of luecliani- cal skill in the subject matter, by which they could nuike, or direct the making of the machine, by following the direc- tions given, the specification is good within the act of Congress. Ibid,, 322. 20. The patentee is bound to describe roforo ti) juit [ whiitcviT is ul IMljOVIlU'llt /t(7(/, 1 I'uiiu', Y., l«'2r). as to itiiloiitN, is siliVic'u'iitly iiaMf a slull'iil i itatcntiKl iin- williDUt any Misidcrc'd vdiil r (lot ails of tlui at larj^i!. Jlnr- ', 142.— Wai,- buo. rjj;ain with llio e ruk's of good ' contracts, and iiiiicates the in- statuti! is siU- »//(,«, I'.aia., 310. i31. tatiitc docs not , llieso ruli's and of judicial con- Knti;lish courts y direction. But s diilVrent, and it. As to the eft to construc- os or purjioscs, deliiu'd, and in ,vo IK) discretion 10 what was in- iiuinish. Ibid, nt, specification, 1 niadiine, clear nen of inechani- natter,Ly w'.iich rect the making owing the direc- ication is good ess. Ib'uU-m. ound to describe SIMXIKIC'ATION, B. oau now INVKNTIOK TO IIU lllMCUIUKI) IN. with reasonable certainty, in what his iiiveiilion el>llsi.^ts, and what his partie- iiliir claiin is. iiiit he is not lioiiiid to use any precise form of words. It is hiilliiient if the eonrt can (dearly aseer- ^jiiii, liy liiir iiilerprelaliun, what he in- tends to elaiui, and what his language truly inil>orts, even though the expres- tiionn ."H'o inaccurately or imperfectly drawn. Wi/cth v. Utom; 1 Story, 2Ht(, i;v(7. — SrouY, .1.; Mass, 1810. lit. The speeilication must contain nasoiiahle certainty — must describe the machine so as to enable a |»erson skilled iu the const rue! ion of miudunes, tobuild il — liul it need not b(! so clear as to be understood byaperson wholly unskilled in the art. lirooAs v. Jfirk/itU, 3 Ahv hcan, 2(>0.— McLkan, .1. ; Ohio, lH4:t. 22. Hut the patentee need not state of what material every j)art of the ma- cliino should be made. The princii)lo is the same, whether the p.arts are com- iiosed of wood or metal. ///!/(/., 44 7, 44H. !(!7. The speeiticalioii a?id dniwingof a patent, nnist be so clear, full, juid exact, as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make :md use the invention. It is not enough, if some very skilful artisan could make and uso it, but persons of ordinary skill must be able to do so; niu.st be able not only to construct, but to use the ma- • diine for a useful purpose. Lipinm'ittt V. luUy, 1 West. Law .lour., rtW. — luviN, .1.; I'a., 1H44. 2K. Old and W(dl-knowu macdiinery, with which the new contrivance is to be connected, need not bedescril)ed in the speeilication, or d(dineated in the draw- ing, when no change in their forms or proportions enters into the new inven- tion. I'Jniersoii v. I/ot/;/, 2 Dlatclif, 9. — IJurrs,.!.; N. Y., 1845. 2t). If, however, the description is un- certain and obscrre, as to what was meant, and what is in lact tlit! novelty, that it cannot he determined whether the improvement (H)nsists in the combi- nation of the whole, or of all the parts, or only of some of them, and of which — or of an invention of sonu?, ami if so, of which — the uncertainty will be fiital, and the i^atentee will be under the ne- cessity of making a new specification, setting forth his claim witli greater cer- tainty, accuracy and clearness, and dis- claiming all not new. Ilovey v. iStevens, 3 Wood. &, ^Miii., 30-32.— WooouuKV, J.; Mass., 184G. 30. The patentee must describe his in- vention with reasonable certainty. Un- less this is done, the public are unable to know whether they violate t!ie patent or ^4^i i' ■;: "rrf : 'ISR^Jl "' '»r*' %••* '^Wi ■w^m tidi SPECIFICATION, B. ItUW INVKNTIUN TU UK UKHCIUBKD IN. NW not, and are also iiiihIiU', whim the Uiriu expires, (o make iiiachiiieseDrreetly, and derive the |irt>|ier advaiitaj^es fVoiii (he patent. Ihiroll v. Jiroirn, 1 Wood, it Min., SO, 57. — Wt)oi)iiUKY, J.; Mass., 1B45. ;U. Hut a patent will be held valid, if the invention is deserihed with no nmeh elearne.sH and certainty, that other maehiues could readily be made IVoni it by nieehanies aecpiainted with tlu' subject. IhuL, 57. 3ii. The object of the provisions of the statute retiuirinj^an inventor to describe his invention in .as fidi, clear, and exact terms as to enable a skilful person to con- struct it, is twofold: 1, that when the term has expired, and the invention b onies public property, such means of i nia- tion may be accessible through the Pat- ent Otlice as will enable others to avail themselves of its benefits; and 2, that while the patent is in force others may be informed of the precise claim of the p.'itentee, and not it^noranlly infrins^e his exclusive rights. Parker v. iStiles, 5 McLean, 55. — LEAVirr, J., Ohio, 1849. 33. JJy the patent laws the inventor is not to be protected unless he de- scribes plainly and fully what ho has done, so tlnit the public may copy or imitate, and use the invention, after his l)atent expires. This is the considera- tion for the exclusive use during the ])eriod of the patent, and having this prevents the patentee from claiming afterward more than he had invented when Iiis patent issued. Smith v. Down- iHff,^iS. — WoouuL'UY, J. ; JMass., 1850. 34. And what he does not, or cer- tainly what in the misty future he can- not describe, he must be presumed not to have invented. Ibid. 35. All that the law requires in re- spect to clearness in the specilicutiou is, that it should bo clear enough to ho miderstood by ordinary mecrh.'uiics, aiul that the thing described could be niailu from it, considering the specification as H whole, and adverting to the drawiii/*, 11 1I()\V., Sui). C't., 1850. ioiulilion to tlio ivcry imtciit, thu I in his spi'ciflcii- oar account iiml entioii, Hlio\viii<^ 0, method, man- li the result is to ; his invtntion /.i, lew, and what Im mrslcy v. Brook- .) — MousKix, J.; rers that fi certain produced in any jture, or coniposi- de use of certain patent for it, ])ro- e means used so ,t a skilful person ms specified, with- iction, produce tlie lis cannot he done, it can he, tlio pat- jive riglit to use and nothing more. 5 ITow., 119.— Ta- 1853. ers tliat a certain •oducedinanyart, !, or composition of f certain means, is "or stich discovery, ■th in his specitieii- OS to produce suck any one skilled iu sing the means spe- .ddition or subtrac- duce precisely the HOW INVKNTION TU BB UUICUIUKI) IN. result lio (lescMihcs. If this cannot he dune hy Jhe int-aiis he describes the pat- ent is void. Ainei'. Pin Co. v. Oakiulli: JUhCo., H IJIatciif., U)2; 3 A. L. R., 137. ^■Inokusoli., J.; Ct., 1854. 30. Tlie clearness tlu; law requires in a specilicalion must he such as will dis- tinguish the thinjjf patented from nil otiiers previously known, and wliicli will t'nahle a person skilleil in I he art or sci- ence of which it is a branch, or with Avhich it is nearly connected, to con- struct the thing s|)(>(rific(l. 'Jeeae v. J'/u'/])x, 1 jNlcAlIis., 49. — MoAi.LisTKit, J.; Cal., 18.55. 40. As the patent laws of the irnitod States grant the patentee a monopoly, jind not only award damages but inilict penalties for the violation of exclusive privilges, it recp.ires the invention to be 80 described in the specifications, that one ac(puiinted with the art or mami- facture to which it relates may not only understand the invention, but be able by following the specification, with the aid of the drawing, to make the thing which is the subjiict of the ))atent. Winteritiute v. Jtedhiyton, 3IS. — Wil- son, J.; Ohio, 1850. 41. The patentee may l)e regarded as a purchaser from the ))nblic, being botmd to 80 connnunicate his secret by specifi- cation, drawings, and models, that it shall he successfully available to the whole couimuiuty at the expiration of the patent. Ibid. 42. The patentees, to make their title good, must describe fully and clearly their whole invention, and the method ' of using it. If any thing material in respect to its construction or working is Glutted in their specification, they lose all claim to the exclusive use of their discovery. CaiT v. Rice, 3 or 4 Blatchf -Betis, J.; N. Y., 1856. 43. It is a settled rule of law that i\w specification need not describe that which is within the ordinary kncwl^dyc of any workman having a competent knowledge of tho work, who may bo emi)loyed to put up the apparatus, or construct the macdnne. -Piif/e v. J'lrri/, MS.— Wit-KiNs, J.; Mich., 1857. 44. A patent may bo considered in the light of a deed from tho govern- ment, the consideration of whi(di is tho invention specified ; and the patentee is bound to connnunicate it by so full, clear, and exact a description, that it shall be within the con prehension of the ])ublic at the expiration of the pat- ent, for at that period his invention be- con»es piiblic j)ro])erly. Iftid. 45. The specification is intended to teach the public the improvement pat- ented: it must fully disclose the secret ; must give the best mode known to the inventor ; and cont.ain nothing defective, or that would mislead artists of compe- tent skill in the particular manufacture. Ibid. 40. A Avitness, in order to be coni|)e- tent to testify as to Avhether a specifica- tion contains a sufficient description of the invention, must be one skilled in the art : one not so skilled is not a fit person to determine as to the sufliciency of the description. Poppenheiistn v. iV. Y. O. P. Comb Co., 4 Ulatchf. — Inokkboll, J.; N. Y., 1858. 47. If the specification does not clear- ly specify and point out the improve ment or combination which is claimed as tho invention of the applicant, a pat- ent cannot be granted. Davis, Ejn parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Mkbuick, J. ; U. C, 1859. 48. The object and design of the law requiring the description of the inven- tion to be full, clear, and exact, is, K4mM^' 630 SI'KCIFICATIOX, C, D. AMIItUl'ITY AM) t'ONOIALMIMT IN; KrrKCT OF. thill the public iiiiiy bo aibiioiiisliiMl uf jirt'ciscly what tho piitenti'o chiiiuH, ho thill it may iiut btf i;^ii<»fantly iiilViii!^('il, aiii(f. 60. The ik'scription need not, how- ever, be so particular ns to dispense ■with tho exercise of skill and judgment on tho part of the mechanic. In carry- ing out an invention, the exercise of some skill and judgment on the part of the mechanic calleil to construct it, will alicays bo re((uired. Sonu'thinj^ must necessarily be left to him. Ibid. 51. In deciding; whether the subject of an invention is set forth in a clear and intelliifible manner, so that one can understand its precise character, it is necessary to take the whole specifica- lion together, not simply tho summary at the conclusion, but the entire p.aper. Tho single point is whether, taking the ■whole specilication together, there is a subject set forth and described which in itself is patentable, and whether it is so clearly described that it can be un- derstood, and the precise character of the invention known. >/udson v. Coj^e, MS. — Leaviit, J.; Ohio, 18G0. C Ambiguity in, and Effect of. See Ambiguity. D. Coxcealment in, and Effect of. 1. It is a question for a jury whether the specification contain the whole truth relative to tho discovery, and if not whether it has been concealeil with a view to deceive. Jicuf^en \, JCiinowrs, 1 Wash., 171.— Washinoton, J.; l»a., 1804. 2. As to tho materiality of the tliiii'' coturealed, tho (|uestion is, could an ar- tist, after the patentee's right is expind construct a machine by looking at tho specification. This is a i' expeeti'd •'! imderstuiid tlioHid)- jcct HO !is tVniii flie dfsciiptiDfi ^iveii ti> iii:ik(* the niacbiiie. liut Kueli a pre- empt i<>" would bo we.'ikeiu'd by the U'stiinoiiy of sueh skilfid persons, that tlii'v could not hesitate iu siipplyiiijjf the oinis>ii>ns. //>/5 of the act of 170M, docs not avoid tin patent, \udess the defect- ive concealment or descri[»tion has been made for the purpose of deceiving the imblic. LmcvU v. Lcwin, 1 Mas., 18!), 190.— Stouv, J.; Mass., I.si7. E. Dki'ects i\, now niiMKniKD. See jMisTAKKs; IIeissuk of Patent. STATES, POWERS OF. 1. The power of Congress under arti- cle 1,§ 8 of the constitution, in seciu'ing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, is limited to autliors and in- ventors only, and does not embrace in- troducers, who are not the authors or inventors. TJinngston v. Van Iiigen^ 9 John., 560, 500, 582. — Yatks, Thomp- son, and Kknt, JJ. ; N. Y., 1812. 2. But such clause does not prevent the several states from exercising the power of securing to persotis introduc- ing useful inventions the exclusive bene- fit of such inventions for a limited pe- riod. J6«?., 560, 566, 582. 3. Nor does it take away from the states the power to enlarge within their jurisdiction the privilege, by extending the term of the patent or monopoly, beyond the term allowed by the acts of Congress. If)l(l., fiHl. 4. \ st.'ite cannot take away from an individual his patent right, but if an author or inventor sln)ul/(/., 581. 0. Nor does that clause of the con- stitution operate as an exclusion of all state legislative authority ami interfer- ence to aid and protect the rights ob- tahied under the general government, if the power is exercised in harmony with ju>d in subordination to the supe- rior power of Congress. Such power is not gr.anted by exclusive words to the United States, nor prohibited to the in- dividual states ; it is therefore a concur- rent power, which may be exercised by the states, in a variety of cases, without any infringement of the congressional power. Ibid., 507, 581. — (Tiiompsox, Kent, JJ.) 7. The power of Congress is only to ascertain and define the rights of prop- erty in the invention or work ; it does not extend to regulating the use of it. Tins is exclusively of local cognizance. Such property, must be used and enjoy- ed within each state according to the laws of such state. Ibid., 581. 8. The grant by the legislature of a state of an exclusive privilege to an in- vention for a linaited time, does not im- ply that at the expiration of the period *^9 •<■' h.1.' < \^yk*' mn STATITKS. roXSTUrrriOX OK; a. i-orrHKMir Ai'vu. ait ov nixi, )| I. tlit^ iiiviM\ti('oiiio |iiiMti< pri)|i- •Tlv. 'I'lio hi. Ill* iiiiiv rnicw (In- i;r!mt III tlio (Mill of tlii> pt'riiiil, lit- n>t'ti><«* In tio HO. h'l'iDui V. /''iifnn, IN'!., ('. I'., ;I!I7.— W \siiiNt;ro\, .?. ; I'a., IHKI. 0. CoiitraclH in rfl:ilii)ii Id piilt'iili'il ni:u'liiii«'s, :iri' rt>)j[iil:ilfil liy llii> laus of till' Hovcrnl Hiah'H. Wi/son v. Smuf/niu/, 10 IIdw., IH).— T.\\KY,t'li. .].; Sii|.. I'l., is'.o. I(». \f tln> ri}j;lit of llu> itiin-liuscr of n p.'ilcntt'd niat'liini' is iiirriiiuci], lit>iuii>«t st'rk hmIivhs ill lln» coiirls nC llic slHlt<», iliul:it'ft»rilii!;xli>lli('ir laws. 'I'liniiacliiiu' is |u'rsi»iial |>ro|>('rl y, ami is not prolt'cl cil by tlu> laws ol" ilu> I'nilod Slatt's, Itui l)y tlu» laws of llic slalt> in wlii<'h it i.s silnaU'il. I{li>,»iiir\. .^/ri^inirini, I i How., .'t.'>0. 'I'ankv, Ch. .1.; Sup. (M., iS.-rJ. C/inlfn' v. /{osf. /{./fhnf To., '.".' ll«)w., J-':!.— ('i.iKi-oiM»,.l. ; Slip. Ct., 18:)l). 1 1. I'r('\ions (o llit> acfs of Ponj^rcsH, many ot" the slah's had cMMcist'd llu' power of irianlini; ••xrlusiNc privilcp-s, williiii llu'ir ivsporlivo liTritoi-ifs, loiii- v«MilorK aiul iiiliodnt'iTs of invtMilions. l*ro\isioii was inatli' in llic at'l of ITO.'I, g T, lor siu'li oases. L^'^'"'-! SrATUTI'.S. A. CorTnioiiT Arrs r>:ts II. TaTEXT .Vf'TS. 1. Power of Coiiijres.^ h enart fl'17 2. /' '/)■(•;/ iiiid Inknt of. C 17 3. GfnfraJ or Vuhlic Arts 010 4. Spi'riiil or I'rivate Acts. a. OiMu-mlly , , (17(1 b. Act f(ir KiUefof Tlioin:!!' Uliuu-luird l>77 C. Aot for Ucllof of Oliver Kviinn (ITS d. Act for Ucliof of William Woodworth 6T9 A. CorvRiGiiT Acts. The notes here inserted under the dif- fcriMif soclioiin of ill* Ni'VtM'id ticli. am of a ut'iit'iul fliararttT, or lia\f iiioit imr lictil;\f rrft'reiH'e to llu» i'<>nMtriiiH,,ti dj' llii> slaliili'S tlii*tiis«flv« cxlrndetl notes tlieii'to see AiTKNinx. I /'/;||| now onl\ lie vieweil iis p:iii of mir Ntal- iile law. Cinjton v. Sfo)i,\ '2 I'jiin,. .•is;i. -TiioMi'soN, .1.; N. v., Injs. '. The olijeel of the tiets of ( 'oii'^'rcss seeiiriiiLj tt> iiiilhors the exclusive \'\i^]\[ lo their \\ritiiiL;s, was the proniotion of seietiee. //>it/., 'M)'2. :t. 'The privile^x*' »>l' mi aiillior In .m eveliisive sale tif his works for a liiiii|(>,[ iinnilier of years, allhoiiL^h .a inoii A. 6A0 pvcrnl noti. nrp liiixr limn- jmr •ottHtriifflon (if « ticiii (<• il nnti'N tliort'lo, hui'. IC>. nu'ily I'tiiisiilfriMl unit !:i\v, Itiil cnii I |»:»rt «troiir hIiU- Sfi>iii\ '2 I'liiiu', N. Y., IHJS. ' Mfis ol" l'i)ii;^n'ss If cxcliiHivo I'mlil tlu' |ir()iii<>tii>n (if ■ ail audmr to ;iu (irks lor a limitcil iij^li a iiii)iin|iuly, in»'aiiiii;j; of tlic )(>r rt'wartl Tor lii^ , ami to vvliii'Ii In; IH to ill*' t'NflllMVl' 1- kiiitl ol" jtn.iH'r- , '2 I'aiuc, :»•:..- , \H'2H. is iiiU'inif"! to 1)0 ,1 to lu' tlio vi|,'lil ail autlmr lias, at manuscript. Sucli lis well to l)ooks lainisrript ('"F^. 8 IVl., 0(51— Mc- lH;t4. :issiii<; llio ^^'^ 0^ ito in roleronce to tead of Banctioning (MPTHKIIIT kil'H, AtT Of lltIO, (*,)) 3, 4. AITT Of INO}, )( I. nn I'liHtiiig right , it crt'uttnl it. J/n'if., (Ill I. I). Ill tli«> riiit*lioii «>\<'i'|i| iin- ilcr till' Ihwh Dl'Coiij^ri'SM, //»/rsoii cannot. Iiiivc an oxcliHivc ri"lit or copyright in a laltcl, as it is not •I liook, williin tiic pro\ isions of tlic hl:iliitc. CijfWn V. ilnnifon, \ Mcl.caii, f,l7. -M»I,K.VN, .1.; Intl., IHIil. I. Tin' provisions of this Kcction, vhii'li rctpiirc the author to piililish the title (if his hook in a newspaper, iiiul to deliver a copy of the work itself to llie Se. retaiy ol' State, are iiii'rely ilireelory, mill constitiite no pari, of the essential riMmixiles for seciirintx the I'opyrij^jht. Mr/ioh V. lii«jijliH,'.\ Day, IT.H. - Cuui- AM, ('(., IHOM. 'j. The piihlic.atioii in the newspaper is inteiideil as lej^jil notice of the rij^hts si'Ciiieil to till' author, Itiil is not neces silly where actual iioli<"e is l)roiifi;ht, home (iillie party. A/;/•<(?., 490. 5. If the title of an autlior dependo/(/., IIK). f^lion 4, I. The copy of a bonk to be deliv- ered to llie Secretary of Stale within six moiiths after piiblishini; thercnf, ap- pears to be designed for public purposes, and has no connection with the copy- riijht. A iiei;|rct to deliver such copy will not iiivalidat(> the copyrij^ht, and is not a condition precetleiit thereto. Xir/iiifn V. /iiiifij/ia, :\ |)ay, I TiH.- Cu- nt AM, (M., IHKH. '2. I'lider ihiH Hcclion, a copy of n book may be deposited with the |)e- parlmeiit of Stale after the expiration of six months from the time of its pub- lication, if not done before, and will avail from the time of its being depos- ited. />(fAo//'/» r'(W, I Opiii., r>X2. — WiUT. Ally. (Jen.; iH„"2. M. Wliere the work coiisisled of a number of volumes, ///rft»i, I N. Y., Leg. Obs., l99.~TiiuMi'soN, J.; N. Y., 184;j. Act of 1802. Ciup. 3G. Section 1. 1. The act of 1H02, ^ I, proviih-s th.at no person can be cut it hi to the benefits of the act of 1790, unless he Hhall, in .A»»l *'*"^«^wW»h. hmt< '^•^M»»^|! ... ,,, - "_ -^-m .'n,44i .hi' ^mi Will ■ s *\ 640 STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF; A. t'i)i>rniaiiT acts, act or 1003, KH I, 3. A(T or inii). ^S%» addUion to tho rcquiiiitca fiijniiictl in t$D :< Kill I 4 (if I hill nof, cniiNv a copy of fho n'r(»n|, n>)|iiii'i>(l hy tlini act to l»c ]iilli!i-4|i(tl, to li(> itiM rtt (I, at full lcii.rtli, ill the titl)>|i:i<.'(>, or mi ||i«> pa^c iniinu- «liiilcly followiiijj the title. /I'wr v. 6Wc, 4 Wash., UlO. — VVAhlllMuidN, J. ; J 'a., \^'1\. 2. The pcrwon, therefore, elaiininy a copyright, before he can he «'iititleil to the lieiieiitM ' act Ih iis if it rcail: "the proprietor, het'oro lie Hhall bo eiititicil t 'le beiietii of tho !ict of 171)0, NJiall cai.-o a copy of tho reccil of the title to he published; ami sh;ill de- liver a copy of tlic book to the Secret ;iry of Stale, as directed by the third and fourth Hcctioiiri of that net; mid Hlmll also cause a coity of tlio said record to be inserted at full leiii^'th in the titlc- pa5,'e," ttc. //>/(/., 41)1. 4. Under the act of 1 700, when con- Hulercd in connection with § 1 of the net of 1802, Mil author caii obtain no ex- clusive riufht in his work, unless he coni- plies with the requirements of )5}5 ^ '""^^ 4 of tho act of 1790, by causing? a copy of the record of his copyright to be printed in the ncwNpapcrs, and delivcr- \n^ a copy of his work to the Secretary of State. Wheaton v. PcUrs, 8 T^t., 065.— McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1834. Section 2. 1. Under this section, the person in- tended and described as the proprietor of a copyright in a print, is one who shall not only invent and design, but who hhall aUo enj^rave, etch, er wmk the print to m hii-h the ri;^ht in eliiiiti(.,| • or, \\\\'\ frivm /lit oirn xcurkn ami /,(. I'liifiniiM, Hhall cnixe the [iriiil to hf i|,.. «i:;iied and engraved, elrlnd or wtirkotl. /tinn» V. yoodn^f^ 4 NN'ash., fil,-_ WAHiiiNi.roN, J.; I'n., 1821. '2. Ill the fiiHt case, the inventor nnl d((signer is ■deiititied \»ith the engravi r- or, in oilur words, the entire work or subject of lb«' eoj)yright in executed hy the •aine person. In the latter, tlio iii- vention is designetl or <'iMlin(|ied livth., persttii in whom the right is vested, ninl the fortii and completion of the wuiL are evecuted by another. Jftii/,, 51, n. Iiut in neither case can a peimm claim a copyright for a mere invnitidn, tho work of his imagination In(k,.,| u., in his y,,\i\ mind, or existing in a fi»iiu not visible to others. Jfiid., fll. 4. Nciilicr is ho socntitleil, unloss lie has not only iineiited, but also i- ble form to tho conceptions of tlio iiiiinl, or, in other words, to the invention. If>id., fi'i. 0. Where neither the design nor tlie gerend arrangement of a print, nor tiie parts which composed it, were tho in- ve ition of thf plaintiff, but he had em- j)lo" (^d and jiaid tho artists who ImJ composed and executed it, //(A/, tlml liu was not entitled to a cojiy right iiiicUr the provisions of the acts of Congresii. Ibid., 53. Act or 1810. Chap. 19. 1. Under the act of 1790 and 1819, as to patents and copyrights, the wu- era of copyrights and pat( iits, do not v.u\ or wtiik ^lil U I'laiiiu'il ; |iiiiit to Ih' ill' ht'il or workcil. Wash., f)l.- 1821. 10 in\ rntor nnil li tluM-nj^nivtr; I'litiit' work, or t IH «'X('C'iiti'(l liy w liUtiT, the ill- iMii'MuliiMl liy till' lit iH vi'stfd, mill ion of the \\o\l >r. /A/'/., T)!. \8e can u jii'igim I itit-ro iiiviiitioii, unlioii lofkc'l u|i 'xintin;^ ii» a loim JhU, r.i. L'lltitU'il, uiilcislic Imt. aim) lU'/ij^u-il l)Ject in some visi- whi'H used ns a giving of 11 vi>i- )tio!iH of the mind, ,(> the invention. ic (IcHign HOI" the of a print, nor llic il it, weri! the in- tV, l)iit he had em- !irtists who li:i«l x'clit, //r/'Mlmll"^' a coityright uiuhr acts of Congress. CuAiv 19. of ITOO and 1819, -.pyrights, the WD- ,nd patt nts, do not fifTATUTES, CXMfWni (mON OF} A «4t cnl>T«l«IT Mim ACrPr )■!», ACT Or IR.l), § I. hflvt* rotlrotiH or rtOh-fin nny oaiM where tli(.y .'imlfl not lii'ton* hiivo hwX i »|iiif in nonu- Court «'itht'r of iMjnity or law. l'lcr/"'iit V. Foirfi', i! WiukI. it Mill., i7. ^Wooihu'kv, J. ; Miinh., 1h ki. '1. 'rh»'nit nvU inorcfv oiiutiio ihoin to .,.(M iito NU(*h claiins it. thw Cin'itit llourt of thf riiin'tl St at I'M, iih (lii-y iiMially hud doiio iM-fori', but withon' it,i\u>f to tho Htnto frihiuitilH; thr pulilif iiitt'rcNt ri'i|uirtMl n iiiiifonn Construction to ht> phu't'd \>y niu' triltunal, on .'ill ini- imrtunt (|iii'MtioiiM conm'ftt'd with riifhtH Kohiid. Ihilieuii V. (>liitf(fi:if/, 17 IIusv., l.'ia. — C'iiniH,J.; Sup. C't.; 1854. 4. Tho equity jurisdiction "f Htich courts, as to copyrights, docs i\ot ox- tciitl to the adjudication of fori'. itMrcn; iidcrrec therefore cannot he ciilertd for IJR' |n'iiiiltic-< itvcurred for a violation of tilt' copyright. //>/riiv rcincdit'S, lUid not riijhtH. //»/«/., 4fl. H. Tndcr till' ftatiites, which confer and regulate r////''.t of literary pr«»prie- torship, l^l• ( ititeii^hip of MU. h p:irlli'H is uIno uiiinipiM taut. It is si.lllcieiit if tho o(>tnplainaiit in a nuident of thii Tnited Stalen, I /ml., 46. Act OP 1831. Chap. 10. See also Coi'viiKiirr, A., Ik, C. 1. irnder this n't, a person to be a "resident," ho as to bo entilh^d to a copyright, must be a i)enti:inent resi- dent of the country. A person tempo- rarily residing here, even though ho has declared his intention of l)C(!oniing a citizen, cmnot take or hold a copy- right. ( '(/rcy V. (fdUi' r, rjG \iU-s' Keg., '.JtJ'.'.— Bkits, J.; N. v., I8;i9. i!, Cupt. 3Iaryatt, a subject of Great Britain, and an officer under that gov- ernnuMi', being temporarily in this coun- try, took the re«piir(il o.-uhof his inten- tion to become a citizen, and then took out a copyright for one of his books, and assigned the saiiu- to the plaintilV; J/> III, that he was not a " resident" within the meaning of the act of 1831, so as to be entitled to a copyright for his hook. Jhiif, 3. The author or compiler of a musi- cal composition, rnade up of difft i(;nt parts, copied from older compositions without material cliange, and put to- gether into one tune, with only slight alterations or additions, is not entitled 'O^t^f'i'U ' •49 PTATl'TKH, CONSTItI'(^IOX OF; A. ('■•••THKiiir Arm. Acr or Ili3l, |i| 3, 4, i. to n ro|»yrlH:tit for fciich thpri'fnr. ftrrif V, Ciirati,^ l.iiw I{»|»., 411.— Tank V, Ch. J. ; Mii<> wtio ^rtM oiliorn tf> ('oni|iil<> n work, or I'ti^jruvo n print, U i nt cniiili'il to n «-(i|»yri>,'hl. furfnttii v. I'mrlf, 'I W«ioiI. A Min., 40. — NVi' >iim uY, J.; MUMM., \HU\. 0. To ••oimtltiitc one nu niitlior. In* rniiNt, \\y liiri own iiiti>lli'ctital liilxir :i|>- pl'u'd to tlit< iii.'iltrialH of Win rttiiipoMi- lion, priiiliico lui arnin^t'incnt or conipW iatioii nt'W in ItMrlf. Atinill v. tyrntt, 'i mat.'lif., 4<1.— lUrrs, J. ; N. V., I Hid. «l. A pfixiM iiiiinot Hirnri' a copyri^lit for altcratioiiH ami irnprovfUxMitN in a tiui>«i('al «'oniposition, made Ity oiIuth for liini, and af Imm c>xpcnH«<. //^al axHigrii'*' ol" tlu« autlmr may take ont tlu* oopyri^lit, and it will make no dilVt'i'fncu wlictlirr tn* holds it as trusti'c>, lor i\w licm'tit of aiiollu'r, nr not. lAttle V. iioxhl^ '1 nialclil'., :i(it(. — Nki,8oN', J. ; N. Y., 1852. 8. An artist, who in (-mploycd hy the Uiiilcd States to »Mi^'rav»' a chart, of \shich tliu oricript was tho property of, and I'lirniwhed hy the gov- ornment, lias no pretenoc of right of copyrii;ht in the engraved p!.'»* ■ s or im- pressions therefrom. Sifxr^ » (^tmf, 7 Dpiii., C50. — CtsuiNii, Atty. (.Jen.; 1850. 9. Under the net of 18.31, no j)erson c.in obtain a copyright, except authors who aro citizens (jr residents of the United States, ami proprietors under derivations of title from siwh authorB. Kcene v. WlieaUcy, Amor. Law Keg., 45. — Cadwau.a )Eit, J. ; 1':l, 1800. 10. The assignee of a work, composed by a non-resident alien, cannot obtain a copyright for it. Ibid., 45. 11. A person who liircs another to write n iKmk, nnri jflvwltlm thi' ih>«»'rtjk, linn and Hcnpe of the wurk, Im not lli(> niilhor. The literary ninii who nriir^ ihu book, nnd preparcM it for piihlion. linn, Im tht* author; and the ci)pyt'i^|,t in intendetl to protect him, and not tl|i< perMon who employed him. Ih, ||7f| V. lirook», MS. -Nkij«on, J.; N. Y,, IHIU. I'.*. Where the incidenlNnnd exintpiof » persou'n lile wcro furni<«hed hy miuIi perMon to niiother, who prepared ih,,,, for public*ation, and the copyi^ht w.ih taken out in the name of the |ii'i'xiiti n.t tarnishing M\ich facts, //»/(/, (hat he h;i« not the author, and that a party liuiii ing as his assignee could not inaintain an a<;tion for infringement. Ihiii Sfctiim 9. SOO also C'OPYHIOIIT, E. 1. An assignment of a "oopynglit"i,i to be H'ferred to what was then in ox istence, and not to any future ciiiitin. gi-ncy. J'iirjKifit v. J'hwle, 'J Wnod. i .Min., 43, 45.— VVooDULllV, J.; Masi, 1H40. 2. An assignment of a " copyri^'ht" should not by construction be cxlcinlcd beyond the first term, unless it seems to be actually so nu':mt by the iiiitlidr, and to include any future conliiigciuv. /A/fA, 44. ;t. The taking out a second term oh copyright is not like the streiigtlicniii;' of a defective title, but rather like a new interest obtainecl after the general interest had expired. Ibid., 40. Sections 4 dk 5. See also Copykigiit, D 1. Where a work consists of a number i.ik, \* ii"t " nn wlu» wrltrH U for |»»i\ilio!i iin, iiutl in>l till him. 7>«! U7fj »oN, J.; N. Y., |ltM5l» |»i't>i>i»v«'»l th«iii ,,r the iH't-dtii K.) mt II l'!K"'y iliiim i,uM no' i"!»ii>t:"ii iwui. //>'•'. I a. r, K. „f ft " oopyn^hl" is il was tlu'ii ill I'x any future contin- .uuuY, J.; Mass., of !i " ooi)yn^;ln" ructi«)n be extfiuU'il n, unlesHit >'i!''"'^'" ;int by till! iuitlmr, •,it\irc contiiigt'iiiy. t a si'cond torniofa tin- Htn'ii:j;lli»''ii"'-' , but rather like a ,o,\ al'tiT the general fw 4 «t 5. (JUT, L) consists of a number bTATLTES, CON^4TlU rriUN OF; A. «ia loPTMitllT AOm T ktn or IMt, W f •> *> „f vohiuie*, tilt) liuertioii of tlio ri't'iird on (lie |*'*U*> f**'^^ follouiii^ the title pikj^u ol' the ///■*/ lUtimnf uf llie wurk, in it iiittii lent eoiii|iliiMieit with the ntatitle. picit//if V. .l/7/4, 1 N. Y. Iie((. Olm,, ItfH.— TinmrMoN, J.; N. Y., I84:i. •j, The tilllllbi'r of Viilllliit'M ill witiell it wi\n Hlated the work woiilil b«> piib- |i,iii'<|, iiiitiie lilt part of itH title, aiul iii:ky ho rujeeted ait NiiriiliiNa^u. Itiiil,, lUO. .'!. The author may Innert tlie mmw rreiinl ill another edit ion, |iuhliMht'd in iMlilVerent number of vnlunieM, without imi'airinjj; the e»»|»yri;;ht. /f>i(;$ t and A of llu> aet of IH;II, ilepo»itin^ the title pa^e in the iii'opi'r eli>rk'r« ollico, publirthip;; a notiec itcciinliii^ to the itet, and tlcliverin^ a copy of the book, are eonditimiK the per fiiriuaiiee of which is t-ssmtial to tlu' title, llxkcr V. 7by..r, *J IJIatehC, h|.— llmH, J.; N. Y., IHIH. r>. Where the tille-paj^eof a book waH ili'|Misited in I Hid, and the notiec of the I'lilrv iii^!(/., 84. li. Kvcn if the error antsc from mis- lakf, it will niaki" no dilleronco a» to the ruMili. n>{Ui>! wJin/m:*, I lllatehf., tJJO. — Nki,h«>n, J.; N. Y., IHAO. 0. I'ntil all the ihin^^n re«piir«Ml by )i;| 4 and .^, act of Iniii, artudone, tho copyright Im not Neeiired ; but by lakin|{ the incipient Mtep, a ri^lit \h ac« rfit/, it McLean, ;i3i;.— Mci ka.n, J.; t)liit), I 8. ■)'.'. 10. The provisioiiH of {{ 4 of the eopy> ii;^dit aet of 1 8.'! I, as to the deposit ul' the title pa^ji! t)t' the book to be copy, righted, beforii publication, and the de> ponit of II printed volume of the book uithiii three months after piiblieatioii, must be complied with in order to ena- ble a party to avail himself of the pro- viHioUK Heeuretl by that aet. Strmw. v. SrhwiJlir, 4 lilatclif. — Nklhon, J. ; N. Y., 1857. Seetion C, See also IvFuiSiiKMKNT, A. 1. It is of no consequence in what form tho works of another an used, whether it be a simple reprint, or by incorporating it in Home other work. If his copyright is violated, he can main- tain an action therefor, (/nii/ v. Jiiis- nitl, 1 Story, 19. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1839. 2. To entitle a i)arty to an action for the infringement of a copyright, it is not necessary that the whole, or a greater part of his work sho\ild be taken. If so much is taken as to impair the value of the origin.'d, or so that the labors of the original author an; substanti:dly appro- priated, an action will lie. I'oUom v. \e,-' %..«' >,..jj '^W^IJ! .li'- .; »»■ dilf ^(i> w 644 STATl'TKS, CONSTIirCTlON OK; A. COPYIUUIIT ACTS. ACT OF 1831, ^^ 0, 7. m MMi ^•lit* PS»i* rtf Mnr.'i/i, 2 Story, 115. — Stouy, J. ; Mass., 1H41. ."'. Tlio fiitifefy ot" Uic coj>y right i« tlie piojitTty of tho author, nntl it is no dv- fence tliat anutlu'r lius aj>j)rt)|iriatctl only u part of such juoncrty, ami not the whole. IbUl.^ 1 1(5. 4. Nor does it ni'cessaiily (lepenel upon tho quantity taken, whether it is an intVitigenient of a eojtyriglit or not. Ihiil., 110. 5. If a copyright has been invatletl, •whether tlie party knew the work was copyriglited or not, ho is liable to tho j)enalty for violation. 3fillctt v. Snow- deu, 1 West. Law Jour., 240. — Hkits, J.; N. Y., 1843. 0. A book may, in one i)art of it, in- fringe the copyright of another work, and in other j)ar«= be no infringement; in such a case tho remedy will not be extended beyond the injury. Story v. Jloh'oruhc, 4 McLean, 315. — ]\IcLeax, J.; Ohio, 1847. 7. A book, within the meaning of the statute, does not include a translation of :i work. Stowe v. Thomas, 2 Amer. Law Reg., 230.— Guieu, J. ; Pa., 1853. 8. A translation may be called a trans- cript, or copy of tho author's thought or conception ; but in no correct sense can it bo called a copy of his book. Ibid., 231. Penalties under. 1. The penalty of fifty cents per slieet imposed by this section, is incurred for every sheet found to have been in the defendant's possession, or which they ha of the .act of I S3 1 , import a transcript or copy of tho entire liuok. Ibid., 341. 0. Congress did not intend to inflict these penalties njton the unlawful pniit- ing or publication of less than an entire work. Il/id.f 341. Section t. 1. The penalty for an infringement is fixed by this section. If the jury liiul there lias been an infringement, tliev must ascertain the number of sheets proved to have been sold, or offered for sale (not the number ])rinted), and re- turn a verdict ibr one dollar for each sheet so sold or offered to be soM. Millett v. Snowden, 1 West. Law Jour., 240.— Beits, J. ; N. Y., 1843. 2. A defendant is not liable to the penalty imposed by this section, unless he was guilty of the infraction of the copyright, within two years before ac- tion was brought. Reed v. Carusi, 8 Law Rep., 412. — Tanky, Ch. J.; MJ., 1845. 3. The engraving or preparation of plates, where the work is printed from plates, may have been more than two years; but every printing for sale would :T-ri WB STATUTES, CONSTllUCTION OF; A. 646 COI'YRIOHT ACTS. AOr 1831, g^ 0, 11. ACT OF 1834. , '2 lilutcl-.f., 47. . 1)y lliis s(v- lor tlu" slu'cls f the (lolViul- no\v.,Hll.— 14S. I l)y tills sec- it ii\,i; aii'.l pub- . as to aiiumm he (M)))yvii;lit. o. Law lii'i)., , 1H")H. )y of a book,'' 1831,1111)1011 :i le oiitire book. iiitcntl to iiiiVul unlawrul iniiil- s than an ontiie infrinoromcnt is If tbo jiny iiiul liugeiiient, they miber of sheets 1, or offered fur inted), aiul re- tlolhvr i\n- eacli ed to be sold, ost. Law Jour., , 1843. ut, liable to tlie s section, unless ufraction of the years before ac- ed V. Carusi, 8 lEY, Cb. J.; MJm • preparation of is printed from more than t\vo mgfor sale would he a new infraction of the rij,'ht, niul if Bueii printinj; was within two years be- fore suit broiij,'ht, the ilefeiidant is lia- \,W. IhUl, 41 -J. t. The jienally is at the rate of one dollar for each hheet the defemlaiit may have caused to be printed for Hale, with- in two years before suit brought. Ibid., 412. Section 9. See also Lkitkus ; Manuscripts, 1. There remains in an author, iiot- \vith^taIlding the copyright by statute, !i eoninion law title to liis works before iiuhlicalion. Jones \. Tfiornc, I N. Y. beg. Obs., 401).— McCouN, V. Chan.; N. Y., lH4a. 2. At coinnion law, independently of the st.'itutc, the author of a nianuseript iiiii,'ht obtain redress against one who hud surreptitiously gained possession of it. Jhirtlefte v. Critti/idifi, 4 McLean, 301.— McLiCAX, J,; Ohio, 1847. ;?. On general, equitable principles, relief may also be given, under like cir- cumstances, by a Court of Chancery. Ibid., 301. 4. The use, by an author, of liis nian- useript lor the jiurpose of instruction, is not an abandonment of it to the pub- lic. Xor is it an abandonment to allow liis piiitils to take coiiies. Ibid., 303. 5. Those also who have been permit- ted to take copies, have no right to a use which was not in contemplation, when the consent to take copies was given. Ibid., 303. G. The common law protects the right of un author to liis manuscript only. Bartlctte v. Crittenden, 5 McLean, 38. — MclEAy, J.; Ohio, 1849. 7. § 9 of the copyright act of 1831, also protects such right. Ibid., 38. 8. The .-xct of 1831, J5 9, giving re- dress fur the unauthorized printimj or publinhin(/ oj' maniixcripts, operates in favor of a resident of the United States, who has ac(piired the proprietorship of an iinjyrintcd literary cfunposilion from a non-resident alien author. Keenc v. Whrnthy, 9 Anier. Law lleg., 45. — Cai>wai.i,ai)KI!, J.; I'a., 1800. 9. But this section — and which is the only one enabling a proprietor, who do- rivea his title from such an author, to as- sert any right under the act — gives no redress for an unautliorized theatrical representation. Ibid., 45. Stclion 11. The penalties referred to in this sec- tion, cannot be recovered in an action brought in the name of more than one person. Ihrcft v. Atwill, 1 IJlatchf., 155.— Nklsox, J. ; X. Y., 1840. Act op 1834. Ciup. 157. 1. An assignment of an interest in a copyright must be in writing to be valid and operative ; but an agreement to as- sign may be by parol. Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend., 505. — Nei.sox, J.; N. Y., 1832. 2. An assignment of a copyright, al- though not recorded, is still valiil as be- tween the jiarties, and as to all pi'rsons, not claiming under the assignors. Webb v. Powers, 2 Wood. & Min., 510. — WooumiRY, J.; 3Lass., 1847. 3. A formal transfer of a copyright, by this act, is recpiired to be proved and recorded as a deed for the conveyance of land, and such record operates :\y notice. Little V. Hall, 18 How., 171.— McLean, J.; Sup. Ct., 1855. 4. The statute of 1834, sanctioning i,;i-'4«#!l M*' Bgyi'*'' '1- ^Ij^^ww*^' Wfirflv-K '^oiM i v;^''*'C. !i?w^: * • s 646 STATUTES, CONSTIIUCTTON OF; A. COPYRIUUT ACTS. ACT Or 1856. assin;iiinL'iits of copyri'^lit, proscribes only the iiistniinciit by which they tniiy bi' iissij^iied, ;iiif the United States, for the protection of authors, do not, like those for ho benefit of inventors, sanction transfers of limited local pro- prietorships of exclusive jtrivilcges. Kecne v. Wheatley, 9 Amer. Law Reg., 4G. — Cadavafxadki!, J.; Pa., 18G0. S. A V viting, which is in form a transfer, by an author, of his exclusive right for a designated portion of the United States, operates at law, ruly as a mere license, and is ineffectual as an assignment. Ibid., 4G. 9. But in equity, a limited local, or other partial assignment, if made for a valuable consideration, nuiy be carrieil into effect whether it would be effectual in law or not. Ibid., 47. Act or 1856. Cuap. 169. 1. The act of 185G was passed to give to the authors of dramatic compositions the exclusive right of acting and rcpro. senting, which theydi author or assignee le-pago, and has not •k or play. Ihid.^ shich affords redress loatrical represent;!- A\igust 18th, 185C; js to cases in wliieli ually secin-ed umler Kcene v. Wheatloj, 45, — Cadwalladek, s act, an assign. e of isition, cannot main- ts unanthorizod rep- ers, mdess he has per- s required by law to ,including the deposit Ibid., 45, 40. STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF ; W. 2. 647 I'ATENT ACTS; I'OMCT AND I.NTENT OT. B. Patkmt Acts. 1. Power of Co/iffrefis to enact. Sec CoNGUEfiS. 2. Poli.cy and Intent of. See also Patents, P. 1. 1. Many of tlie provisions of our pat- ent acts are derived from the principloH and practice wliich liavo prevailed in the construction of those of England; and thoug'ii it is not strictly the case in respect to the English statute of monop- olies, as in respect to the statute of frauds arid of limitations, which have been adopted into our own legislation, that tlu; known and settled construction of those statutes by courts of law has been considered as silently incorporated into our acts, or has been received with all the weight of authority, yet the con- strnclion of the statute of nionoi)olies adopted by the English courts, and the priiK'ipies and practice which have long rc'.'iilatod the grants of th(;ir patents, as tliey nnist liavo been known and are tjcitly referred to in some of the pro- visions of our own statute, afford materi- als to illustrate it. Pennock v. Dlaloyue, 2 Pet., 18.— Stouy, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1820. 2. The intention of the patent law, as declared by Congress, is to promote the progress of the useful arts, by the bene- fits granted to inventors ; not by those accruing to the public after the patent has expired, as in England. Wliitncy v. Emmett, Bald., 321. — Baldwin, J. ; Pa., 1831. 3. Intended for their protection and security, the law should be construed favorably and benignly in flivor of jiat- entees. When the invention is substan- tially new and useful, and the HjKM'ificrt- tiou is intelligiblo to men who umler- stainl the subject, juries ought to look favorably on the right of property, and fmd against a patentee only for some substantial defeet in nis title jmpers or proof. Pjid., ;I22. 4. To promote the progress of the useful arts is the interest and policy of every enlightened government. It can- not be doubted that the settled purpose of the United States has even been to confer on the authors of useful inventions an exclusive right in their inventions for the time mentioned in their patent. It is the reward stipulated for the advan- tages derived by the public for the ex- ertions of the individual, and is intended as a stinnilus to those exertions. The laws which are passed to give effect to this purpose ought to bo con- strued in the spirit in which they have been made ; and should be executed fairly on the part of the United States, if this can be done without transcend- ing the statute, or countenancing acts which are fraudulent or may prove mischievous. Gr,. Ijgtf'' W^W' '''*■•' iSb.i''^,-^' G4R STATl'TllS, (X)XSTltrtTI(IN OF; B. 2. "I i-^i. VATIMT ACT8; IHIUOT AND INTKNT OF. hlriu'il willi llu' utmost rlj^or, as strirt- iKniiiii J'trin. .ii/i<.t V. //owartf, 1 Siimii., 48:..— Sn»Kv, .1.; .Mjiss., \hx\. 7. 'I'lio »'oiistitutii>ii of tlio Uiiitftl States, ill ^iviiii:: uiitl'.r.rity to Coiij^ii'sh to liraiit putt'iits for ii liiuiti'il tuT-.txi, (It'clan-s till' ohji'ct tt) !n' to proiiioti' tlir proijivsH of siMt'iii'o aiiil useful arts, nil object as truly national, aii>l iiicrito- rious, aiitl wel! loimdcil in |mlilic policy. in ailvaiii'injx llio arts, ;lirouo;li Nciciiw and in;;;('iinil\, liy jUii'.iil»Iii'. liiirall v, Jtroiru, 1 Wood, it .Mill., .")7. — WooKiuuv, ,!.; ."M.'iss., lHl,^. II. I'lider tilt' jtatent, l.aws tin' in. Vi'iitor rei'L'iviis no monopoly. Iiisuad of ivt'civiiii; any lliiiiix from tlic pulijic, sctipc of national jn'otci'tion. Ui'iico it lias always Ihm-ii tlu' coiusi' ol' llu* .\iiu'riiaii courts — aiul lalti'iiy of tin* Kii!^lisli -to t'onstruc patents fairly and liliiTally, and not sul'jcct tlicni to any oscrniccand critical rolinoincnts. 7/>/(/., •is:.. 8. It is no oliji'ction to tlic valiility of laws rcspcctiii,u pati'iils, lliat tlu'y .iiv retrospective in their operation. The powers ot" Conjjress tt* li-iiisl.ite upon the suhjt'ct of p.'itents is plenary hy the coiistitiitioii, and as tliero are no re- straints on its exercise, there can be no liiuitation of its riirht to modify them at j.U-asure, .so that they do not take away the ri^ihls of property in e\isiini; pat- ents. JIt'Clu>'i//i \..Ki/ii/.iltnt(f, I How., 'JOlK- l>.vi.i>\rix, J.; Sup. Ct., ist;l. 0. The patent law jjrives to Inventors an oxehisive right in their inventions, but it is not a monopoly in an odious sense. It takes nothing; Ironi the com- munity at larjje, but s.'ourcs to th.eni the j;reatest benetits. And to secure them the remuneration the law provides, a liberal construction should be rjiven to it. ///•()( '/i-.-j V. IiiekiuU,\\ ^IcLean, 4;t7. — McLkan, .1.; Ohio, 1S44. It). Tiie patent laws are not made to encoura>xe mo.iopolies of what before belouixed to others, or to the public- which is the true idea of a mononi-'x' — but the design is to encourage ^vu.u.- as any which can possibly be within the ln' confers on it tlu* j.jreat('st bciictiis- and all he asks, and all he r«>ccivos is that for a W'w years ho shall reali/o some advaiitajxe from his own crealion. Pttrkii' v. //iriro/^//, I .McLean, Itt'j.-- Ml Kk.\n, ,1.; III., ist8. I'J. The piiwer jj;ranted by the patent laws is domestic in its character, and necessarily confined within the limits of the riiited States. The patent acts do not and were not intiiiiled to opi>r. ate beyond the limits of the I'nitcil Stati's, ami a patentee's right of prop- erty and exclusive use cannot extend beyond the limits to whii'h the law it- self is coniined. Jinnenw /)i(c/ii\// V. fSrowii, \ WooPluliY, J.; lit, laws till- in. \()pi)ly. lt\''li';i(l \\on\ tlu' |iiililic, ;foatt'st lKMU'lit>; all In- ri'i'oivcs, s hi' shall ri'ulizo his (uvn iMVulion. [ .Mi'Loan, !t7'J.— It ml by tho patent Its rharactt'i', ami within till' limits Thi' imti'iit arts inlondi'il to oiuT- trt of thi' I'nitiHl •o's rir(>])- lisi' oaiuiol I'xlohil whii'h the law it- \cii Y. Ihd'/i^'Siie^]'^ C'h. .1.; Sui.. Ct., have been passed the useful ar'.s— ielit of the reimh- Isole henetit ot" ill- 's. It, is for the ii- public that piiv- liiivoutors, allowed ieeteil f>>i' liiniteil i beiiolit. Jhti/w U Blatehf— Hall, lautcd to itiventors jimply, but for the the publie hv en- L make inventions jto the public wlien losal. Jionsom v. STATIJTKS, i:ONSTUl'(TIONj OF IJ. 3. 049 I'ATBNT Al'TH; I'UIIUU. ACT Of lYOO, g^ 1,3,4,0,0. _M,n/oi\ ttc, <>/ Xcio Yorlc, MS.— IIali,, j.;'n. v., 1h:)0. i:i. The limited ami temporary mo- iiiiiMdv ijraiited to iiiveiituiH was never ili'siiiiieil for tlirir e\elusive prolil, or iiilvaiitaLje; the benefit to the public or (onnnunity at larjje was anollier, ami ildiilitless the primary objccl in <;rant- iiis,' anil seeurinj; that monopoly. Ju;/t- ,l,,ll v. UV/i.vor, '21 I low., yJ7, a^H.— DaNIKI, .'■ ; Sup. ("I., IHSS. 1(1. 'I'liis \va^ at onee the ecpiivnleiit ('i\i'ii l>y the publie for benilits be- siowetl liy the i^eiiius anil nieilitalions and skill of iiuliviiiuals, ami the ineen- tivc to finlher ellbrts for tiio same iin- liortaiit objects. I/)ificti(ion/ and such notes are eonliiieil lo those s'ltioiis as to which there have been iliiTCl atljuilications. For the several patent acts in full, and with more extended notes thereto, see ArrKNDi.x. [-/v'(/.J Act of mu). Cii.vp. 7. iicction 1. 1. Under this section it was held that tlio alienations and su.Lji^fostions of the lietitioii must be substantially recited in the patent, or the patent was void. l-jvii$ V. CfH(iiifj( IV, '2 Wash., 12(5. — WAsiiixaTON, J. ; I'a., 1807. '.'. The Secretary of Stato cannot issue apiUont unless the prcre(|uisites reepiirod by l;i\v are complied with ; as lie canaol issue a patent without aspi'i-ifieatioii, or with II speeillcation alto^xelher anibi^^ti- oils and imiuli'llii^iltle. Ivnciisn v. «S'i7t//yi-l /i-iU littnk, \ Wash., l;t. -WAblli.NU- To.N, J.; ra., Ib20, Section 3. The olVicer authori/.od to fjivo copien of papers or drawiii'^s, in patent cases, has no concern with the purpose for which asked. The policy of tin- law rather ret|uires than forbids that copies should bo ji;iven when applied for. Aiion.f 1 Opin., 171. — 1'i.ncicnky, Atty. (;en. ; 181 'J. Section 4. A erccti'd on his own j^remises, and at his own expense, a machine, which was the invention of 1>. I» then took of A a lease of the machine for a term of years, covenanting to reconvey the same, at the ei.d of the term of yi-ars to A. r> afterward brought an action against A for the use under such recon- veyance. IFeld, that this amounted to a license or- consent to use, in writing, within the meaning of this section. Itcutyen v. JCr/;/<(/ J\wic ovidi'Dce tliat the invention patented ■WHS new or useful, but tlie phiintiff was l)ound to jirovc! these facts in order to make out his case. But the act of I8;<(i introduced a new system ; and under it — its iiKjuisitioii and examination — a patent is received as prima /acie evi- dence of the trutli of the facts asserted in it. GoriiitKj v. /htn/c/i^ I.'j I low., 270, 271.— Gkikr, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. Act or 1793. Ciiai-. 0. Section 1. 1. The first sectior of this act is to be construed a\ ith tlio other parts of liie act to mean that tlie discovery shouhl be unknown, and not used as the inven- tion of any otlier than (he patentee, be- fore the a])plication lor a patent. Mor- ris v. JIiuitiiKjton^ 1 I'aine, 35;i. — Thompson, J. ; N. Y., 1824. 2. The first section of the act of 1793 is to be construed with the sixth sectji n of the same act, and ine.'ins that the first inventor has a right to a ])atoiit, though there may have been a knowledge of the thing invented before the appUixition for a patent, if such use or knowledge •was not anterior to the discovery. 3Iel- lus V. SiMtee, •! Mas., 111. — Stokv, J.; Mass.,, 1825. 3. The true construction of the act of 1793, considering the first and sixth sec- tions together, is that to invfilidate a pat- ent because of a prior use or knowledge, the thing p.atcnted must have been used prior to the alleged discovery of the patentee, and not merely prior to the >tf^)lH'ation. Dread well v. lilatlcn 4 Wash., 707, 708.— WAsiiiNciTo.v, J.. Pa., 1827. 4. The moaning of the M'ords "not known," «fec., in 55 1 of the act of 179;) is that the invention must not h.-ive been kiu)wn or used bi/ the jmblir before tlio application. Petniock, v. Dialogitt 2 I'et., 19. — Stoky, J. ; Sup. Ct., IS'jl). 5. Tlio patent act of 1790 used the words "not ktiown or used before" without ai), tiie jictition alone fiolilotn contained any thing as to the iiiittiit heyond a mere title ; sometimes fuljpr, !ind again very imperfect and gt'iicral, with no other ailegalions or suggest ions, or descriptions whatever, except those in the schedule or specifi- cation. /A>///y V. Emerson, (i Ihtw., 480, 481. — WooniuiSY, J. ; Sup. Cf., 1847. 10. Hut the Hpecilication being filed ■it tlie same time, and often on tlio same paper, seems to have been regarded, wliotlicr specially named in the petition or not, as a part of it. To avoid mis- takes as to the extent of tlie inventor's claim, and to comply with the law, by inserting in tlie jjatent at least the sub- stance of tlie petition, the oflicers in- serted, by expres.s reference, the whole descriptive portion of it as contained in the schedule. Ibid., 48\. Section 2. See also Foinr. 1. It is not every change of form and proportion which is declared l)y this act to be no discovery, but such as is siin- pli/ !i cliange of form and proportion, and nothing more. If, by changing the form and proportion, a new effect is ]>ro- (luccd, there is not simply a change of form and proportion, but a change of jirinciple also. Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock., 310. — MABSHAtx, Ch. J.; Va., 18'.! 7. 2. Though this declaratory act, that a change in form ih not a discovery, wa» not re-enacteil in the law of Ih;)(», it ih a principle which necessarily m.-ikes part of (!very system of law granting patents for new inventions. Wititftm v. Den- tneiiif, 15 How., 341. — Cuktis, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1863. Section 3. 1. The t.iking of the oath, by the in- ventor, is but apreretpiisile to the grant- ing of a patent, and in no degree essen- tial to its validity. If therefore not conformable to the statute, it is no ob- jection to the patent. W/iittemore \. Ci/t(er, 1 Gall., 43a. — Si'ouv, J. j Mass., 1813. 2. Under the provisions of this sec- tion requiring drawings with written references, if the specification refers to the dr.'iwings, they thereby become part of the written description of the inven- tion. JEarle v. Sawyer, 4 Mas., 10, 11. — Stoky, J.; Mass., 1825. 3. An exemplification of a specifica- tion of a patent is made evidence by this section of the act of Congress. The exemplification of the patent itself stands ui)on the conuuon law, as being an ex- emplification of a record of a public document, and is alw.iys to be received as evidence. The drawing or model need not be exemplified. Peck v. Far- rhigton, 9 Wend., 45. — Savage, Ch. J.; N. Y., 1832. 4. The patent act of 179^ does not limit the inventor to one single mode or one single set of ingredients to carry into eflfect his invention. Ho may claim as many modes as he pleases, provided always that the claim is limited to such as he has invented, and as arc substan- tially new, ;wd § 3 of this act requires in the case of u machine, that the inven- mm^f' .^^^il^Ew "'>•»' '' ' .-!X*-0 r ' • 9^ 'n,,, ■ *r;i^|#r '^^\i m{ wm^ ^ 652 STATUTKS, CONSTUrCTloX OF; 11. 3. rATKXT aoth; rruLio. act or n'j;i, ^g 4, 6. /^li tor sIihII cxiihiiti tliu Hi>vori(I nioiIuH in which h(! hiis ('()iilciii|ilat<>i| the iipplicti- tion ot'ilM |ti'in('i)ilr. Iii/'it- tcn reft'VcncL'S to tiio (ira\viri<;s. It is Bufflcicnt il' drawings anrc p.itrnl taktti niil, //t' iiiaiiitaincil by tlu> piitciitcc, Ittit hIioiiI'I III' broiij^ht hy llic assii^'iicc. Jlo'hift V. Ailinnx, \ Miis., 15. — Stouv, J,; Ma.s., iH'j:,. 0. WliftliiT the nssij,'tu'(( of ii part iiitt'iT>*t ill II piitt'iit, cin^uinMcrihotl by liK'iil limits, may iiiaiiitain a suit at law ; (mry, Hut lio may in oniiity. Oytv v. A'yt', 4 Wa^sli., 584. — W AsiiiN.iToN, J. ; Pa., 18'J(1. 7. Un.lt'i' tho nets of 1703 and IHOO, tlie Circuit Courts of thu Unitctl Stiites alone luivo jurisdiction of ac- tions brought for damages for an in- lViii!,'('iiient of a patent. Jiurrall v. Jewett, 2 Paige, 145.— Walwoktii, Clmn.;N. Y., IBiiO. 8. Tlic uiiikcr and seller of a patented artiilo, wlliiiii flio meaning of this nec- tion, is tho perHon for whom, by whose JiroL'ti(»n, and for whose account the ar- ticle is sold, ami not the mere workman employed to sell. Delano v. Svott^ (111- piii, 498.— TIoi'KiNsox, J.; Pa., I'.U. 9. § 4 of the patent act of 1 7!>(), nnule nil infringer liable to pay such damages as the jury should find, and also forfeit the imu'liinc. § 5 of the act of 1793, declared that .an infringer should pay a sum equal to three times the price for whieh the patentee had sold licenses. § 3 of the act of 1800, provided that an infringer should pay three times the ac- tual damages sustained. Seymour v. }f'Cormifk^ 16 IIow., 488, — GniKrw, J. ; Sup. Ct., 1853. 10. § 14 of the patent act of 183G, confines the jury to the actual damages sustained by the patentee. The power to hirrenne thoni, n« punltlvo dfimngp% Is committed to the discretinM and jud<> ment of the court. A/>/lainliff to treat his patent as void. The 2*i"oceeding9 under this section are tho acts of the defendant only, and the plaintift' has no right to set up a defect in his own pat- ent. Morris v. Huntington, 1 Paine, 355. — Thompson', J.; N. Y., 1824. G. This section docs not enumerate all the defences which a party may ■>1l kut**! t'ii fc' i ™«*l4 '(I est STATTTK^, CONHTUUtTlOV OP, H. a. i'ATKyf Acni; fvw.tr ACT or IftJJ, ^i 0, JO. r'^^:iL ^ /i» J A inuko li( n Hnit liroiiLrlif untinnt hirr* for violiilin^ II pitU'iit. Oiii- (iltvioiiH iirritM- kioM IM wli«r ii lirvimo or grant iVoni tlu' iiivt'iitor. IVinnK-k v. TJialaf/ue., 'J IV't., 'I'i. — SruUY, J, ; .Sij(>. ft., 1HV!1». 7. TIh* ('irouil Court, in a civil »iiit, cannot ilccluri; n patent void except lor tilt! caiiMcs Hpocififil in tliis Ncction. If lliL' patent is defective for any oilier cause, tlie verdit t mlint he ^eni'ral for tlio defi'iiilant, WfiUnvij v. J'hntnrtt^ llald., :)21.— IlAi.nwiN, J,; I'u., Im-U. H. If a difeiidant heeks to annul a pati'iit lie must proceed in piecise con- formity witif g of tho act of 170;J ; and "fraudiileiil intent" must bo found by the jury to juntify a juil;;iiient of ruti-tt- ly. Stmrm.^ v. hnmtt, 1 M;»ii., i74.__ Stouy, J.; MasH., IHIO. lui' l)y llie court. This scitioii di»en not control tilt! third. Gniid v. Iitii/m>iiii' fnvi. itn, and is not final. Sd-nrnrs v. Jhirnit 1 Mas., lO.').— Srouv, J.; Ma«.M., in o, li. The authority intended to he pivtii by thi^ section is vested exclusively in the Dinirict Courts, and pn., .(.(Jin-^fH under it are summary, ami not in tin; nature of a urire facias. The inakinj,' the rule ;*m/ absoliitu works n repeal of the p.itciif without further pri)(e('iljri"!(, J/r(,',iir V. /iij/iin, \ V. S. Law Jdir. OH.— Vax Nk.sm, J.; N. Y., Is^'J. 3. Under this Hection the niaktiig lli« rule 7iinl absoluft! docs not tfe facto work a repeal f»f the |)ateiit : hut (lie process to be i--;ued is in the nature of a «rire fariaa to tho putentee to show cause why tho patent sliould not he re- pealed. Wood it Ilruntla(/r, Kx jnirt,\ 1) Wheat., 004, 01').— Stoky, J.; Sti],. Ct., 1824. 4. The jurisdiction given to the Dis- trict Court, under tlii.'i section, applies only to cases in which the patent has been obtaineil by fraud, surreptitiously, by false suggestion, or by some wilful misrepresentation and decej>tioii. Dc la HO V. Scott, Gilpin, 403. — IIoi'Ki.vso.v, J.; Pa., 1834. 5. The liearing on tlio return of tho rulo to show cause is on' • initinl, and the order of tho judge is not tli.it tho patent is inv.ilid, but only il .it proces.": shall issue for a trial of its validity. Ibl>l, 404. 0. Tho summary proceeding under this section is given to protect the pul> ^^ OTATtTES* CONhrUUtTlUN OFj II. a. «M PATKKT AOT«; n»lM. AVt Ot 1193, % l\. AOT Of \mW f^ \, ;i lie from »utiiiif«'Hl framl in lakin<^ out ] 4. CopU-H of |iu|uTi rniiiiol Ik> titkcn nntoiiW C' >> fi'*'i of (»f!U'i> hoiiiK in )>y lliiiil (MtrmnH. Tfioy t/tkist Ik» iiiado clii'rk) for known nn year>«, eoiild ii»t li;iv« a patent for \u. iiuentiun operated hy hitn in .•ux-thor «'ountry, ItelMro lii»iii., :iJ2.— WiuT, Atty. (ien. ; IH'JC;, 2. liy till- provisionH of this act, taken in connection with thoHc oi' the tu'i of 170:i, citi/eiiH and aliens, as to pulenl- riglils, are jiiaced snWstantially upon the saino ^'I'ound, as to a i'i|j;lit to a patent when the invention ha.s iieen known or used In foro it was patented. In lioth cases the ri<;ht i^« to be tested l»y the same i lie. iShato v. Cooper, 7 I'et., ;uo. — McLk.v.n, J,; Sup. Ct., la33. Sertion 3. 1 This section gave jurisdiction uiiljr in actions on the cane / Ihhf, therefi' e, that a suit in c»piity, respi'i-tin^ a pat- ent, in order to be cogtiizable by the Circuit Courts, must come within the provisions of the judiciary act of 1VHI>, and that wiiere tho parties were all residents of the same state, such courts had not jurisdiction. Livinfjston v. Van Ingen, I I'alne, 4H, hA. — LivixG- STON, J.'; N. Y., 1811. [This defect. was afterwanl remedied by tho act of 1819. Ed:\ 2. This section gives an action aj^aiust any one who shall " make, devise, use, Wit/' nn.^, (iilpiii, ftilU, .,2-i. — lIoi'KIN- »o.\, J. ; Po., 1834. Section 11. I. The officer intrusted to jfive copies of pollers or drawings in |»at«'nt cwses, lias no concern with tlie purpose for wliicli asked. The policy of tin law nitlicr re(piires than forbids tliaf copies shoald he given. ^l//()»,, 1 Opin., 171. — riS(KNKV, Atty. fJen.; 1«12, •J. A defendant being permit U'd, iin- .lor ;:; ij of the act of 170H to set up the (litVtice that the plaintitrs specification ilfH-'S not contain the whole truth, he k\» under this section a riglit to call (or and have a copy of the plaintitrs siitrilication, and no conditions can be imposed upon tho uso of such copy. Anon., 1 Cpin., 370. — Wirt, Atty. Gen.; 1820. n. The proviso to this section cannot 1)1' '-oiisidcred as opening to all persons iiul -icriniinately the right to demand f()l)ii's of papers respecting patents Riiuited to others. As to < thcrs than u defendant, as provided for in § 6, it rests in the discretion of the depart- ment whether copies shall be furnished or refused. A/. >n., 1 Opin., 718 — WiET, Atty. Gen.; 1825. '»«'.,. !^!1^IU '■ •*• -'.li i. ' 'WIp«'''»»^!i' ■>•,-■ 5,^.- IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4'^/ ii^ <^J^ '/.. <" 1.0 I.I s*^ lis u |iO ■ 2.0 ii.25 my VI '/a ^: Photographic Sdeaices Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 i,\ # iV \ A %. ^q> \^ ^ \ WriS ^ >A '«^ ,v >^ ^ G50 STA'rUTKS, CONSTRUCTION OF; B. 3. '^tK ^ all- I'Al'KNT U;T8; PUIIMC ACT. OP ISOO, g 3 ACT OF 1H19. i act langua.i^e of § T) of the act of 1703, did not couple the mahinuj and usukj together, to con- stitute an crt'eiu'e, so that making, with- out using, or using without making, uas not an infringement. AVhltteinore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 432.— Stoky, J. ; Mass., 1813. 3. The doubt which arose under § 5 of thoact of 1 71)3, whether any person would be subject to the penalty therein men- tioned, for lining a machine which he had not also imule and devised, is re- moved by this section, which repeals § 5 of ilie act of 1793, and subjects to dama- ges any person who shall " make, devise, use, or sell," the thing patented. Evans V. Jordan, 1 ]>rock., 252. — Marshall, Ch. J.; Va., 1813. 4. Under this section, the sale, under execution, of the materials of patented articles, is not such a sale as makes the sherift"liablc to an infringement. Satcin V. Guild, 1 Gall.; 487.-Stohy, J. ; Mass., 1813. 5. Under this section the jury find single damages, and the court treble them in awarding judgment. Lowell V. Lewis, 1 Mas., 185. — Story, J.; Mass., 1817. G. Under this section if the jury find for the plaintiff, they are to find the actual damages sustained by him. The court will treble them. Gray v. James, Pet. C. C, 403. — "VVasiiingtox, J.; Pa., 1817. Evans v. Ilcttick, 3 Wash., 422. — WAsnixGTON, J. ; Pa., 1818. 7. This section fixed the amount of the recovery at three ti.nes the actual damage sustained. Trebling the ilam. ages, under the act of 1830, rests with the discretion of the court. Gnyony, Scrnll, 1 IMatchf., 245.— Nklsox, J.' N. Y., 1847. "' Act op 1819. Chap. 19. 1. This act removes the defect tliat existed under the act of 1800, by wliiih the Circidt Courts did not have juris. diction of srits in equity, but only of actions on tlie case, where the parlii's were all residents of the same state. Livin(jnton v. Van Ingen, 1 Paine, 54, N. Y., 1811 (note). 2. This act does not enlarge or sltor the powers of the court over the snlyoct matter of the cause of action. It only ex- tends its jurisdiction to i)arties not be- fore fidling within it. It removed the objection that prior to it, a citizen of one state could not obtain an injunction in the Circuit Court, for a violation of a patent-right, against a citizen of the same state, and gave the jurisdiction, although the parties were citizens of the same state. Sullivan v. Bedficld, 1 Paine, 447, 448. — Thompscn, J.; N, Y., 1825. 3. This act extends the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts to all cases at law and in equity, arising under the patent laws ; but there is nothing in the act which, either in terms or by nocessarj implication, renders that jurisdiction ex- clusive. Hurrall v. Jewctt, 2 Paicje, 145.— Walworth, Chan. ; N. Y., 1830. 4. Though the substance of this en- actment, so far as it relates to the sub- ject of patent-rights, is incorporated into § 17 of the act of 1836, and is no longer in force," proprio vigore, yet so fiir as it gave cognizance to the courts i STiiTUTES, CONSTRTTCTIOX OF ; B. 3. 68^ bliii;^ tlio (lam. h;I0, rt'sts with lU't. Gnyiin v. — Nklsox, J.; IIAP. 19. the (It'foot tli:it • 1 800, by whuli not have jviris- ity, but only of [icrc the paitii'S the Raiue Ktatc. j/en, 1 I'ahie, 5t, , enlarge or alter ;over the subject ction. It only ex- o parties not be- lt removed the :o it, a citizen of taui an injunction "or a violation of a citizen of tlic the jurisfliction, ere citizens of the V. ReOficld, 1 lOMPscx, J.; N. the jurisdiction to all cases at law luider the patent )thing in the act 8 or by necessary at jtirisdicticn ex- Jemtt, 2 Paige, lan.-, N.Y.,1830. istanco of tliis en- •elates to the sub- is incorporated >f 1836, and is no no vigore, yet so ince to the courts PATENT AOTH; PCDLIO. ACT OF 18,12, JJ? 2, 3. ACT OF 1836, g 2. of tlio United States of cases ofeopy- richt, it still n'nuiins in force, and is the onlv law coiiferriiit? equitable jurisdic- tion on tliose courts in such cases Ste- vens \. (7li«f.>^. '"^'Ww- •'^^. ^l>^^^, 4 PATENT ACTA; Pl'BUO. ACT OF 1630, JJj^ 4, 6, 6. Section 4. Sec also CoriEs ok Papehs, 1. A certified copy of an assignment is competent evidence, and the party cannot be re of tl\is aci, li> [latent shall con- u tliat containL'd d I70n, ii\ (iitU'r ore ami construo- noa (of insertini,' portion of tlie pe- I, as purli course iderstood, ami led Iloijy V. Emerson^ 3DUURY, J.; Sup, tcr of patent, see ition should be de- ATIOX, H. [ding more than one •, D. 2. ;(;s; Machine, B.; [ems clearly to shew ay lawfully unite in J modes of applying Inplatcl, and nil the Modifications of ma- lit may l^e applit^^'l, [w, the patent would lyeth V. Stone, 1 Sto- 1. ; Mass., 1840. by others," in this bly added by way of STATUTES, CONSTUUCriOX OF; W. n. 060 PATKHT ACTS; PfUUC. ACT OF ISIIO, J^ 7. explanation of the doubt formerly en- tertained «>n the subject, whether a use bvthe patentee himself of his invention, before application, would deprive him of a ripfht to a patent ; and to eonfirin the decision in l\,iuock v. 7Jioluf/m\ 2 Pet., 18-22. Jieedv. Cutter, 1 Story, 697. — Stoby, J.; ^Iu88., ia4l. .1. The words " not known or tised ly others before his discovery or inven- tion," do not denote a plurality of per- sons, by whom the use shouhl be known, but that the use should be by some oth- er person or persons than the patentee. IhkU 507, 608. 4. g§ nnd 15 of the act of 1830, and ^ 9 of the act of ISsy?, are to be construed, as to originality of invention, as though they were embodied in one act. Smith v. Eh/, 5 McLean, 84, — McLean, J. ; Ohio, 1 -^49. 5. Tlie second set of drawings re- quired by this act, are unnecessary until the patent issues, and need not accom- pany the application. French v. Rogers, jIS.—Kane, J.; Pa., 1851; O'lteilly V. Mo^ae, 15 How., 126. — Grieu, J.; Sup. Ct., 1858. 0. The things specified in this section are prerequisites to the granting of a patent, and unless these prerecpiisites aro complied with, a party sued for an infringement of tlie patent, may show that they have not been complied with, and in that mode defeat the action of the suppobsd inventor. HiOisom v. ]iI(tyor, (&c., of New York, MS, — ILvll, J.; N. Y., 1856. Section 1. As to withdrawal, see Application, C. See also Prior Knowledge and In- vention. 1. The Commissioner is bound to issue a patent in the case and under the cir- cumstances mentioned in this section. Ho has no discretion about it. J/il- (hidth V, llvath, MS. (App. Cas.) — ('uANn«otiit< fnri'i^n coiin- Iry, |trioi' to tho iillogi'tl invi'iitinii or (liHiovi'i V •>(' the .■ipplicaiil ; or Ins lu-cii on ^iilt' wilii till' :i|)|ilii-:iiit's foiisciit, ]ii'ior to IiIh application tor ii piktciil. 7. An orij,i;in!il ii|i|ilic:iti<)n or Hpccill- onti«)ii oaiiMol lu- aiii('iiilc(l,«<\ct'pt iiiiilir lliin Nt'i'lioii, to fdiil'oriii tin* .spci-ilicatioii to tho altOkUtioiiH NU^);«>NttMl Ity the Com- missioiu'r. Dyson, Ke juirtr, MS. (App. CuH.) — I)rNi,«»i% .1.; \).i\, !H(1(). Section 8. SOO also AlTKALS, 11. 1. Under tliis section no appeal can lic taken fVoin tlu> Coin- jnissioncr of I'ati'iits, unless the oppli cdfii'ii I'or a patent is rejected. In no ease can an appeal l)e taken to tlu> tjr.'iiit- iiijjj ofa patent. I^oincroyw Conniaon, MS. (App. (\iH.)— CuANcii, Ch. J.; I). C, iscj. 'J. The words "either," in this hoc- tion — wlien 8peakinj» of the parties who may appeal — applies to the wonls "such ajiplieaiits," i. e., cither of such pU- t'lt'its. This construclion is sustained Ity tho language below, authorizing the judge, on appeal, "to deteriuine which or whether either of the xippUcants is ontltl'.'d to receive a patent as prayed for." IhiJ. ;K Thero is no liinitalion of time as to an appeal from a decision of tho Com- missioner of Patents 'o tho justices of Circuit Court. Jatmey^ J'Jx parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Cbancii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1S47. 4. Under the act of 1830, §§ 7 and 8, two classes of cases are provided for. An aj)peal i.s given by g 1 to an appli- cant, where there is no opposing party ; and by ^ N, whore there are inteiiViin.r applications. And there is iintliinir j,, the repciiliiig act of IH:ill which lalos away or impairs such right, /•'nit: Ke parte, MS. (.\pp. Can.) Mouski.i,, J.; I). C. ; IHft.'J. r>. Cndor this section a patenlee li;is eipial right of appeal iVoin a deeisinn ,i|' the Coiniiiissioner of Patents in fa\iinir an appli<*ant, that an applicant has jVom a decision in favor of a prior pitteiiliv. Ihthcit'k \. Ihyenrr, MS. (.\pp. ('as.) - Mkuku K, .1.; I>. C., IH.MI. 0. Tlie right of appeal is now cuii- sideretl as established in aceordaiitv with tliis last tiecision. | iul.] 7. Appeals are now taken to (Ii(< jn^. tices of the Circuit Court of the Distriit, of Columbia, instead of to the board (if examiners createil by this seciioii, See act of IHUil, g 11, and act of IH.VJ, Sertipn 9. HyJJ 10 of the act of M.areh 'J, lS(',l,iil| laws diseriinin;Uiiig between the iiilial)- itants of the United States and lliosc (if tither countries, which shall not discrim- inate against the inhabitants of ilu' Unitetl St.ates, .are repo.'iled ; and a new rate of fees enacted, uniform for all. Sectum 10. 1. Under this section, if .an inventor die before he has (ditained a patent lor his invention, no person other than his executor or administrator can apply tor a patent for such invention, and the j)atont nmst be issued to sudi person in trust for the heirs at law or devisees of tho inventor. Stiinpson v. Roijm, i Blatchf. — Inuersoll, J. ; Ct., 1859. lit STAI'II'IKS, rONsrUl'CTH'N Ol'; M. :i. 001 \ IK ni>l)ru\;; in \\\ whicli lak.'s lif^lil. I''"lli, \H.) Moiisvi.i., I ;i p!it<'iitfi> Ikis in !» r ]i;il»'i>Ii't'. iS. (App-riis.)- AM). n'Ul if* ""^^ '■'*"• I ill uffonluiii'i' laKt'H li> tlio jiH- lit of till' nistiii'l f [o \\n' l)0!iril of hy this section. iiiul ivot of IHftJ, Mim'h2JSi'.l,;in lolwctMi tilt' i»li;il»- itiit«'s and those of I H\\i\\\ not discrim- |ili;il>it!\nts tif tl\o )t':iU'^rautt>t> HI* I'xt'i'iitor. What tho I'xt'fiitor tlot's ill n'latioii to thf propi'rt) of tht> dovi Hor, ht' d»)t'H in trust for those to whom Hiii'h prtipert) in giviMi by the will. Ilii,l. S^Uon H. Soo also AssmNMKNf, A., 11., (\ I. 'riic provision as to reconliiifjj as (iiijiiiiit'iitH within three tnonlhs is merely (liri't'tory, ant! exeeptas to iiiti riiieiliato toini Ji(fi' |)nn'liasei-s, without iiotiee, iiiiv siiliseipii'iil ret'ordinjjj is NiiUifieiit. UrotiliS V. Hi/ttin, 'J S(t)ry, ftl'J. Sro- uv,.I.; Mass., isi:t; fiffn v. W/iifmliiii<'/i. (in>i-Sf<),'/,- luw. V. Wiiriirr, 1 r.liilthf., 'JV1.-Nki,hon,.I.; Ct., ISKJ. 'J, A nn'iv liiM'nNo iieotl not In* reeord- eil ; it is not an oxolusive rijjjht. Jtrooks V. lii/ani, 2 Story, ftt'J, 51;). — Stoky, .1.; Mass., 1H|;». ;i. 'Phis section refers to the grant of :in excluNivo right in a patent, and the teriiu'j'('/*/.i/w rompreliemls not only an I'xclusivo right to the whole patent, lint an exi'liisivo right tt> the pat "lit in u |iiiiti('ular section of ll heforti tlie issiiiiig ol' the patent as aOerwariJ. The thing to h" assignetl is not the mere parchment, hut the monopoly conl'crrctl — thi> right of property which it ere- atiw; ami when tin* parly has iicutslanding title of over tlire<> nioulh.s' diinilion, the piirc'iaser need tuily look to the records of the Patent Ollicc. Within that period lio must jiroteet himsi If in the hest way lio can, as an nnreconletl assignment would prev.ail, hut it must hi^ tme in writing that may he recori'.ed. (lihsun v.doi)/,; •2 I Match!'., 148.— NicLHoN, J.; N. Y,, 1850. Hedion 12. 1. This section, providing for a cave- at, is for the heiielit of the inventor, hut is not necessary lor the preservation of his right, nor does the omission to filo a caveat impair his title. Ifihlraith v. Ilvath, ArS. (App. Oas.)-CKANi:it, Ch. J.; D. 0., 1841. 2. It only en.ahles hitn to have notice of !iny interfe. ing ap|)!ic!ition. It, how- ever, gives no notice to the world, nor even to the interfering applicant; and is notice to the Commissioner only. Ibid. 3. The caveat is to set "forth the de- ■illH' *^\^t ' ^f i 662 STATl TFS, {'ONSTKI'CTIOX OF; H. 3. PATKNT ACTN; I'UBUO. ACT Ot 1H:I<), )|§ I'i, 18. u m Ki);ii ami iMirpoHc" ofthn invention, nixl *' its |>i-in('ip:il aixl lii>^ 12 of the act of 18U(5 as to giving the cave- ator notice of any interfering applica- tion, it is to secure him against the effect of the rule. Phdps, Dodge (b Co. v. Brown Jims., 18 IIow. Pr., 8. — Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1859. 0. lint if the Commissioner accident- ally omits to give the caveator the no- tice required, his rights will not bo prejiidiced thereby. Ibid. Section 13. See also Reissue of Patkio". 1. This section made no material change from § 3 of the act of 1832, in respect to the use of an invention, under a defective patent, conferring any right to continue such use under the reissued patent ; but any pertton using an invon. tion protected by a renewed patent, siil,. secpicntly to the date i' I he act of ls;i() (July 4), is guilty of an infringeriiriit, however long ho may have used the same, after the date of the defective jiihI surrendcsred patent. Stinijtuon \. H'j,/ VlanUr li. li., 4 How., 402.— M» Lkax, J.; Sup. Ct., 1H45. 'J. Untler this sectidti tho power to surrender a patent and take out \\ ro- newal ther«'of, is vested exclusively iti the patentee, his executors, administra- tors, or assigns ; and there is n()tliiii(f restricting such right, because of special or limited grants or licenses j)re\ ioiislv made. Smith v. Mercer^ 4 West, baw Jour., nii. — Kank, J.; Pa., 184(1. 3. It is not the meaning of this sec- tion that the patentee, in his reissue, must describe and claim, in his new speciflcation, either in words or idea, just what he described and claimed in his old one; but his specification imist be of the sam«' invention, and hocuniioi embraci a dit!erent subject matter than that ho sought to i)atent originally. Frencli v. liogers^ MS. — Gkiku, Kane, JJ. ; Pa., 1851. 4. There may bo more than one re- issue of the same patent ; the surrender and reissue should be allowed to follow each other as often as the inventor is content to bo more specific or more modest in his claims. Ibid. 5. This section may be regarded as afli'-ining the propriety of the usage tvhich had obtained under the former laws, and under which a second reissue was allowed, as well as the first. Ibid. 6. An improvement may be annexed, under this section, to the specification of the original patent, so as to make it form a part of the original patent: but there is nothing that forbids an inventor !4. iismn im invi'ii. red piUt'iit, Hiili. I lit* act of ls;i(i » ■mtVinj^ctui'iit, hiivi' ust'tl till' u' tU'tiTtivo mill thiipsDn V. Wml 40'J.— M< I-K.AX, J t1»o powi'f to . tako out u ro- ll cxcliiHivcly In tors, uilmiiiistni- luTo is nothini,' let'iuiso of siurial I'usort ])rt'viimsly •(T, 4 West. Law Ta., 1840. .niiig of tlii.s 8CC- L<, in liin reissue, Slim, ill hiw new I words or idea, id and cliuniid in uiccitii'utioM must lon, and he I'luimii )ject matter than mtent orifjiiially. .— GuiKU, Kank, loro tlian oiio re- lilt ; tlio surrender sillowed to follow us tlie inventor is specific or more Ibid. .V be regarded as Ity of tlie usage under the former •h a second reissue as the first. Ibid. may be annexed, the specitication it, so as to make it iginal patent: Ijut forbids au iuveutor ST.VriTKS, COXSTUUCTION' OK; H. 8. 003 i>AiKM Ai-m; vvuua. act or 11130, %% 13, U. takinj^ out n new luiteijf for the iujprove- meiil, if he prefers it. (H'liiilly v. Jilir the duty of tho Commi.ssion<>r," Ac. The true meaning is, the CoinmisNioner is to have no dis- cretion in the case provided for in tho section. Dyaon, Kx jxtrtCy MS. (App. Cas.)— 1)1 Ni.oi', J.; I). C, 1800. 12. When the c.ise providetl for arises, he is cinnmundcdU) cxereisj' the power, whether he thinks it just and right to exercise it, or not ; he has no discretion. Ibid. la. "What the logisl.'Xture designed to secure to patentees by this section was, to en.'vble them to cure honcnt miHtakes^ and to get sidmtiintinlbj 2>rote<'tio)i for the Kdine i/ine/ition they had made and intended to be piitented, when the orig- inal |»atent was granted. The only lim- itation in tho statute is that the inven- tion shall be tho same. Ibid. 14. To prove that his invention, claimed on the reissue, is the same made and intended to be p.itented, he is not limited to the specification, models, or drawings of his original patent, but he may go outside of these and show by other proof, that his invention, at tho time of the original patent, was such as he sought to protect by his reissue. Ibid. Section 14. See also Actions, B. 1,3; Damages. 1. The assignees of an exclusive right in a patent, are the proper persons to the sense of entitling a patentee to an I maintain an action for a violation of it. #1 ^.^^ tm 'Ui W.W.^HrKi'^U,,,;! 004 BTATITTI'S, CONSTIirCTlON OV \ 11. t. I AiKM nil, niiuo. Acr 1)1' I'^.lit, Kd 14, lA. f f.**,. 'W, :^^- "tjn V ^/^^= ^**'W«^Mi ^ ]rf»«/*A»/r/» V. f/»nlJ, n Slory, Ml, 107. — Siouv, .1. ; M.\nn., IhH. '2. Tilt' f;nuitft< «it' an rxoiiinivo ri^lil uiiil«n tlKMij^h rtiirli ri^lit Im liniid'il ti> a iiariiciilitr niiniltci- of ni:i I'liincM, may niiiiiitain an action t\>v in- fi'in^t'nu'i t. Wilnitn v. liiinniiiu^i Iluw., OStJ, (IMS.— Nkmom, J.; Hup. I'l., lH4ft. :<. rndci' lliirt Hi'ftion, in fotnu'clion with 1} 11 lit' tilt' art of ISiKJ, an action iri given onl) to hiicIi parly -composed uf out! or nioro pernonH — aH ptmHeNMCN tlio MJutk' interest in the patent. Siiifilmn V. iKii/^l IMiilclit",2JI. — N'klmo.n, IIktis JJ.; N. v., IHJO. 4. Wliert' a parly Iiuh an interest in only a pari of a [Kitent, as a liceiiHO to uho the invention, lu> cannot maintain an ac- tion for an iiirrin;;emenl. Iltlif., 'Jil. 5 Aitiml i/itifi(ii/i s, acconlin<.j l«» tliis noetiun, are I lie Himi llxetl l»y tlio ver- dict. 'Pile court may render jinlj^menl for three limes I lie amount of the ver- dict. >S(,j,/„>i/< V. Felf, '_• IWalchf, :1H. — Hirns, .T. ; X. V., IHKI. (]. I'lider this Hcclion, it rests in actual ut umler this section the court may increase the tlamai;es, t hough the ]>laintitr is not entitled to recover costs under § 1) of the act of Ih;)7, by reason of neglect iii filing a disclaimer until after .'U'tion was coiinnenccd. If>iil.,2H\. 8. Previous to the act of 1h:1({, the court were compelled to treble the d.am- nges. Since that act they are not com- pelled t'> do so, but may increase them or not, at their discretion. iStinipson v. Jiailroada, 1 Wall., Jr., IGO. — Guiek, J.; Pa., 1847. 0. Aeliial damag' <« docM tiol mean vx. eiiiplary, vimlictiM* damages, lliiil., idd, 10. The HonI "iWMigneen," in ilij, Heel ion, nuiNt be tauiMlrued by reference to {} II of the same a«'t, its meaning tim assignee of a win 'e inlereni, or an iin. divided tine, tir an excliiMive local right. JUnui/ianl V. /•.'lifriifi/i; 1 Wall., Jr. ;U0.- (Jkikh, J. ; Ptt., 1S40. 11. To eiiablt> an assigneti tif a m-c. lioiial interest in a patent to hid! in Inn tiwn mime mnler this section, litt nniHl liavi> ihe e\clu^ actual damages siistaiiiiMl, g 14 of the patent act tif IHMO conriiics the jury to the ucliial damage- siiHlaiitcil by the patentee. The power to increasn I hem as punitive damages, is coininit- led lo the discretion and jiidgineiii ot' tht^ court. Seymour v. JlrCvriiurl; u\ How., 488.— Gkiku, J. ; Sup. Cl., 1853, Seelion 16. See also Dkfkncks ; (iknkhai, Issuk; PUINTKD PlTHI.ICATION ; I'uiOR K.NOWL- KiKiK ANu Invkntion ; PitlOU USK. 1. The public use of an invention, before aj)plication, referred to in this section, means a public use with tin STATt'TKS, CONSTUl'CTIUN OK; II. .1. OdS not Illt'tUI lH'H Hii^laiiii'd. if IH:i(i (•(iiitini's ai^i'-" MistaiiU'd wiT Id liicrcaxii ij;os, is «-oiumit- jUlllMIU'llt lit' MrCunnii'k\ Ki Sup. Cl., 1853. Jknkhai.Issuk; 1'khik Knc.wl- PlllOll IJsK. if an invcMition, 'iTcd to in tills use with tho MTRhi' «• iH, 11 iii.it'. At r nt |N;itl, )| la. i.iiiM'iit of tlio liivfiilor, I'ltluT i»«'iu'rrtl- |v allow I'll or iii'<|iiii'M't>il in, oi at li*ii>«t uiiliiiiil<'«>rliiii*iiliil or ti'iii|Mf rnrv, a* uii net of n intiioilitlion or lkiniliii'»>«. W'lfith v. Sfinii, I Story, ilSl, Stouv, .1, ; .Mans., |hIO. •J, TIlK lU-f't'lU't' >«pt'fillf.l ill tlllH HOC- tliii), "that th«' patiMiti'o wtiM not iIik orijjiii'il ami IIihI itivriiloror tlisfnMi-iM' (if llic lliiiiK palcntcil," Im i'oinpl«
  • , vkiilioiil '^liowiiii; thai tli«> lirht iii\i,it/i, MS. (App. ('as.) — (•u.>.ii, Cli. .1.; I), t;., \Hi\. ;i, 'I'lic rlaiisc iiHinjr " ro:iHi>iial»l«> »lili- wiu'tt in atlaptiii)' and pcirt't'lin^'," an iiivt'iitioii, is applii'.'ildt- only to tin* fast< dt" a lit i'l'iii'i' iIimI iIu- plaiiiliirs paiciit had ln'fii Mirrt'plilioiisly nr iinjnsily til»- taiiii'il; ami if pl»'ail«'l' prior knowl''i,f, 7. TIki wortls in Ihiri seetion, " nnleriA Niii'h person w.'iH nsing reason.'ilJe dill- genee in adapting and perfeeiing the same," eoiisliliite a t/niifijfrdfiini of the preei'diiig language of Ihi' si-elion, so that an inventor who has first actually perfected his invention, will not lie dt'eineil to have siirreplitiniisly or iiii Justly olitaiiied u patent for that which w;is iwj'iii't itikU'Htitl hy uiiollnr, inilrsH tht' tuff It was at the time unfntf rfaaon- a/tlf i/ili>/i'iii'i' in ;iilapliiig ami perfect- ing the same. A/urH/ni/t v. A/ii\ IMS. (App. C'as.)— DuNi.oi', J.; I>. ('., iHf.M. H. The defence that the pati'iiteo had "surreptitiously and nnjnslly ohiaineil the paleiil, for thai which was in fact invented or discoveieil l»y another, who was nsiug reaHonalilcililigence in adapt- ing and perfecting the same," does not ni'(;ess;irily itiiply had faith on the part of the patentee, aga'asl whose patent this tlefence is set np. The w mtls were intended to hu used, :uid an^ used, in their hroadest sense. /V/r/yw, /todffn tb Co. v.Jtromi Pros. 18 Ilow. I'r., !).— Nklson, J.; N. Y., 1850. 0. The meaning of the word patented., in the phrase "patented in any foreign conntry," is that the invention shall i 1 '^'^ <iii lo ilu* H'orlil. Ill Kn^liithl, llifrcrnrc, iiii itivftitinn U iii*t |>iitciit<fiilli'itlii)ii U lilfti, uliii'li iii'fti ii>)t ltt> until nit IllOtltlf lllh>r lll(> lilll«< Ot'fllt' ll'lttTH |l!||. viil. //.»«•»• V. ,V<>rfi'»i, Ms. -SfUAut K, J.; M;!**.. f*iit>. 8*ftion 1«. 1, IVix' •••liii^M iiiir tliU MfOlloi), aihl ;i to oi' llio !!«■! »r iHMtl, ill (>(|iii|y, ti^aiiixt till* l'«>tini)ii><«ii>ti('r of I'ulnitM, to ('i>il liiiii to U«ii«< II piili'iit, inii'il t)t> foiiiiiiiMU I'll ill till- Cirrtiit C'lMli'l of till' rnitiil St!iti'«i, litr till" Di-tiiit ol" i'oliiiiiltiii, aiiil tlu> (.'ii-ciiil ('miri)* in tlu> viiriotirt Ktut(>!« hiivt* no Jiiriitiiiciio**. J'nnfiim V. miswoi-th, Mir. Pal. Oil'., y."i, ;iil. |{\M>M,i, .1. ; I 'a., isjo. *J. Till' a;n«>«< i>t' an iiiti'iilioii, by virtiio of mi aM.ii^ninoiil ii.ui|t> lu'l'mv |»a((>iit ixriiu'il, may tilo a liill in liix own ii.'iini', umli'i- tlii^si'ftiiMi aiiit '^ lOnt'tlu' art ot' l.s:t!), a^aiiiHi a |i:kti'iiti'i' to wlimii a patt'iit i?<.«m'il on tlu' rfji'otitm of tlii« assi^nor'ri application, I'or llu> |)iii'poi*t' of aniiiilliiii; llu> patent i'pi'r;i- tive, miller this section, :iiul amemleil by 55 10 of the act of 1H;U), the liearinj,' IS altogetlier iiidepeiiileiit of that before the Commissioner, ami takes place upon such testimony as the itarties may see fit to j)rotliice, agreeably to the rnU'S ami practico of a court of equity. The ovi- •lenee b«>foro tlu» (\>imni»a|i«iii>r U t^ etiileiliv ill xieh II unit, I'teept by ,.„„ MiH of partie. ; mr are the p.irti, ,r,. utiiele.l to the tf^liniKny nueil ln«t",r,. the l'oniini«(«ioiier. Kit her purl* i« .,| liberty to inlroijnee aillitioniil eviihii,., AtAiiinnti V. ttoiifttmiin, MS. - Nkuoh J.; N. v., IK.M. See aNo Coriir»«, 11. I. I. "Other rea»oimbh» en»ei»,*' uinlir tloN Mvlioii, in Hhieh appeaU iiti,| y^tw* of error may be alloweil to the Nii|iriiiii' Court, niiiMi be limiteil to ^^■^',^^H wlul relate to the eoniNlriieliuii of thr iiuttnl ItiWM, lunl Hiicli aH involve importaiit iiikI not trilliii),' matlerit, eonnei'ted unii those laws, and (pie-« nalv .|,.iil,t. fill. .(//. >i V. JUinif, '2 Wood. A .Mm.. l.'kT. — \Vo«u»m UY, J.; Maie*., iNjii. 'J. I'lider this Meet ion, If ii writ ofcr ror is allowed by the comt as "(i«a»oii. able," Hiieli writ must briiiji; ii|i ih,. whole eiiKe ft»r eonsideralion, and th.' court below cannot decide iim In wlial particular points ^«hall be taken up, /A.,/,/ V. Him)'»tni,i\ How., JTH. - WooDiii liv. .1.; Slip, ('t., lHt7. :t. 'I'he word "reasonable" apjilii'K in the cases, rather than to any disfiiiiiiii:i- tion between the dilferent points in tho i-ases. //'/(/., 47H. 4. A judp' :it chamberH may allDW.i writ of error under iIiIh Hectioii, in tli« "other «'ases" refi-rred to, wliere llio jiid},Mnent is less than ii>*, iOXKTKl CI'IMN OK; U. a. MT r4Tmr «i'i» i< tni* ait or im.iik f,i II, li. ni;il»l«'" ainilu'c U\ to iiiiy (liHi'iiiniiui- rt'iit poiiilK ill llw nliiMH iiuiy ull'>«' !» lis HiTtioii, in till I'll to, wIh'IH' llio ;iiiArjr |Hm.r, nt li> framing; wriiaot' error in pnii'iii rAit>», .(•tint in itu< Cirt'iiil Coiirtii by iliU |#i-||i>lt, i« i'lMllllU'il to ('lti>('i« Hllifll ill ^olW tllO I'OIIKlrili'tinll Ul' lilt* |t;tU'llt |,,M*, iiit'l tlti< ri^lilii III' |>itli'iil"i>it iitiilor ihiMii. Sixtry. .VuMy, Id llt»w., I«».'l.— Tankt. i'h. J. ; Sii|i, t'l., lM.%.i. 7. ('iiiU>r llii* MvtiiMi lilt* I'iri'iiit C\tiirl« liiivi* JtiriMfi*ii\«> ol' lilt* riul'-t i*i' tlio |thiiiliir l<> iiii in jUIU'lioM. "'f l» 'll«IHIi| for i»IH'. .V(»'- ,H$ V. JohtiMOH, •'! lUnlfhr., H;l.--Niti.»«»iN, i;,rtii. JJ.; N. v., IM.%:i. H. TIm* iirtliirul iiili*r|«ii>liilii)ii of tli«> |f.ii^\iii({i> of iliii* H.'i'iion Hci'tiiit to )>«>, lli:»l ConiiiTHH huH lii>»tit\M'tl iipKii llii« cimn A t'oniinon juri»ilii'(ii>ii, Imdt mt it« litw mill otpiiiy Hiii«><«, over till «'iini>n miller iIh* |>itl(>til litWK, lunl lliiit no Niiii ot' lliiil I'li.'inii'tor iitii l>i> iiiJiiiil:tini>>l iit liiw wliirli nitty 'lol aUo Im piuMiciilcil iiicii»ily. H'iii. Sei-hon IH. S«'t> aUn IvvncNHiitN ov Taikni'. 1. Till' ilt'iMsioiior ilio ItiMinl orCniii iMi!4-«ii)iii r^i umlrr lliis Hi'i'timi, is i-uiifln MM' williiii llu' sfii|ii' lit" its !iii.liiiii(y. liroi)h V. liirkiiiU, :i Mtl.ian, 'J.'iS. - Mill AN, .1.; ()lii«», IHi;i. 'J. Ill (lii«* m'ction tlu« word juitiuto- ii iiscil a-< n|iiiv:il('iit \i\ hiriiitin'. H'i'"iits, Itiit also :i|>|)lics to tlw 'p;ist. Ihiii, I7)», I HO. •t. Tlu> olijoct of tin- claiiHi' tiH to nn- siijiiccs is to pn'Hi'i'vo any inwionH con- tracts of assifijniiu'lit, ill tlu' sriiso in wliii'li iiiitli partii's iiiiilcrslooil hiuI in icndeil ut lliu tiniu il wuh niuilc, and to mviirv lo ilii> |iiir«'liii«i>r tiii> riulit lio Imd iiilt'nitt'd lo liiiy, mihI wliifli llii* |>itli'nli>i< inl«it lo *t<||, Wihim v. 7^/Hiir, T l.iiw Ut>|»., AilO. 'rA!>iKt,('li. J.; Mil, IH4... ft. 'llii' t>kli'nition of n |)iit«>nl, iinili Im-ii otil of iif>Mi|;ni'«'<« or ^nihlffH iimliT ilio ori)(iniit iMilt'til, NO iim lo vi-il in lie tc liny i'\i'liii«i\i' rifj;lil. itiii tin IhiuHi oI' nni'li ri'ni>>«til U liniitod lo iIiomo nlio wcri' in llit> UNO ol' llii< |iiiii'nltrxoii> tli«> t'i)r|il It) iiHii |li«> Miii t'liini's hrlii liy lln lini«< oI'niicIi ri'tit'Mal. Wihott V. Iin»,uiiii, I llow., OS.', Nkimin, .1.; Slip. !'•., |M|:., 0. 'I'Im' Mi«'aiiiii){ ol' ilii< words "tiling |tiiti'nl« to tlu^ inai'liitii' pali'iiti'd. /.'wW., )»n;i. 7. Till' plirasi« *Mollii> I'xli'iil ol'tlirir intcnsis tliiM'i'in," means tl,.'ir iiitiTi'sl.. in tliK patriiti'd marliiiios, lir thai iiitrr- est in otii' or iiioro at tlii> tiini' ol tin' ex- li'ii>.ioii. //(/7.— Uall, J,; N. Y., IH.-.O. II. But such ri^ht is limited to a r'l^lit to use, ailhou^^h the person hold- mi; it may also have held, dnrinij the ori<;inal term, an exclusive riijht to use, to make, and vend. And such ri<;ht to IMC is secured tuily to the extent of the respective interests of the assignees or grantees therein. Ibid. Act op 1837. Cuap. 45. Section 2. 1. Where a patent was granted in 18.14, to which no drawing was attach- ed, nor any reference made thereto ; and in June, 1S.S7, such patent was re- corded anew, which j)atent was also extended for seven years on the 20'J» of Sci)teniber, 1848, and in November, 1848, a drawing of the inventicMi, with Avritten references was filed, with an affidavit of the })atentee that such drawing was a true delineation of his invention, Jfi'l(f, in an action of infringe- ment, that under this section a certified copy of such drawing Avas admissible in evidence in connection with the p.at- cnt and specification, and that the whole together madt.' prima ft'ie evidence of the particulars of such invention. Wi- fians V. Schenec. <& Troy H. H., 2 IJlatchf., 283, 285, 298.— Nklson, J.; N. Y.,1851. 2. Such a drawing, hoAvever, as a general rulo will not be etVectual to cor- rect any material defect in the specifica- tion, ludess it should appear that it corresponded with ilrawings wliioh ac- cumpanicJ the original application for a patent : otiierwise, irj tasc oCdiscrep. aiu'y between the drawings and speiili. cation, tho latter must prevail. Xor will such a drawing have ihe sanie effect as if it had been referred to in the specification. Ibid., 200. Sertion 3. 1. Where a ])atent was obtained in 1834, the original of which and the drawings were destroyed by tiro in 183G, and the patentee, under the act of 18;J7, afterward in 1841 liletl ji n)py of his patent, and deposited a drawiui' 'vhich, however, was not verified, but ,iieh ho verified in Februa-v, 1844; and snbseipiently, in March, If. 44, con- sidering such copy im})erfect, filed an- other and a fuller drawing, and com- menced suit in May, 1844, Ilelu that a certified copy of such second draw- ing was properly received in evidonoc in such action. Emerson v. Ifoi/i/, :' Ulatchf., 9.— Bkits, J.; N. Y., 1845. 2. When such drawings are put on file they become public records, and vo\)'m of them must be received in evidence. If they are discordant, one m:iy destroy the effect of the other. Ibiil, 12. 3. Under this section drawings, when burnt, may be restored, and if in some respects erroneous, they can be correct- ed. Hogg V. Emerson, 11 IIow., (500. — WooDHUKY, J. ; Sup. Ct., isro. 4. But it would not be proper to leave the drawings so long not restored or corrected as to evince neglect, or a de- sign to mislead the public. Ibid., COG. Stction 6. Sec also Reissue op Patent. m& STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF ; B. 3. i-ATBST aoth; pcblio. act or 18:n, gg 5, 6, 7. 0f'.9 With ri'spi'ot to roissiu's this st'ction ami § 1 -^ "l" the a<^t of 1 8'M) are to bu taki'M top;otht'r irt eoiistrr.otioii, aiul Mif most just aiul cquiiabK' I'xtt'iit towh'n-h tlio tonns of tln' law in its true spirit will admit of, ought to 'k* ailt>|)ttMl. If the imti'iit be defoctivo or iiisiifVuii'iit, either in the sporitiratioii or ciaitn, thi> mtt'iitoo has a riglit, "n tho absoiu'o t>f fraiul and det'oplion, to have a ridssue forcaoli separate and distinct jtiirt, etlVf- tually to cure the defect : and he has the right to restrict or enhirgc his claim, so us to give it operation, and ctlcctu- ute his inventi('n. Jhill, Ex. parte, MS. (App. Cas.)— MoKsELL, J. ; D. C, 1800. Section 6. See also Assignee, B. 3. 1. This is an enabling statute. Prior to its passage, letters patent could only issue to the invc'itor; and after they were issued they were assignable so as to give the assignee, in whole or in i)art, legal rights. The act of 1887 gave the right to the assignee or assignees to have the patent issued to him or them, and not to the inve.Hor. Anon., 4 Opin., 400. — Mason', Atty. Gen. ; 1 845. 2. Under this section prtents cannot issue jointly to the inventor, as such, and to the assignee of a partial interest : but must issue to the assignee or as- signees of the whole interest. Ibid., 401. 3. After tho assignment of the inven- tion under this section, by Avhich the inventor divests himself of all interest therein, and transfers it to the assignee, ilthough the application for a patent must he in his name, still, for all sub- stantial purposes, and in judgment of law, tfee assignee is tho party making the application, (iiti/ v. Coriu'H, I IMatclif., SOI).— -Nklsox, .1.; N.Y.. IHIO. 4. Tho provision t)f this section re- Huiriiig duplicate drawings, tlu-ULrh di- rectory in its terms, is not a condition : and it has reference in point of time, to the issuing of the patent, an«l not to tho tiling of tile jjctition for it. Duplicate drawings need not be tiled at the time of the application, and such is the inter- pretation of the Patent Ollice. French V. Jiot/er,i, MS. — (iiueij, Kank, .TJ. ; Pa., isr)! ; aiieilhj v. Morse, 15 How., I'-'O. — (iuiKU, J.; Sup. Ct., 1S5:1. 5. If an inventor assign all his right in an invention, the assignee may have the patent issued to himself. But if the assignment be only partial, though tho part excepted is snuili, the assignee has no legal claim to the patent. It must be issued in the name of the inventor, aiul be held by him in trust for the use of the assignee to the extent of tlie eipii- ties he hin by virtue of his contract. Ager's Case, MS., Opin. — Black, Atty. Gen.; labQ. Section 1. See also Disclaimer. 1. The disclaimer mentioned in this section applies solely to suits pending when the disclaimer is filed, and the disclaimer mentioned in § 9 api)lie3 solely to suits brought after the dis- claimer is filed. Wi/eth v. Stone, 1 Sto- ry, 204.— Story, J.; Mass., 1840. 2. Semhle, that a disclaimer, muler this section should not only disclaim what is not claimed as new, but should also distinctly set forth what p.-irt of tho invention is still claimed, as it is mani- festly designed to act as a new specifi- cition. Lippincott v. Kelly, 1 West. Law Jour., 515. — Irvix, J.; Pa., 1844. ■■'IH- yt> !«*' 'li .«* H„H' ,■ *"*[([*'•' I Wni 070 STATITKS, CONSTUU(TI()\ OF; W. i\. I'ATKNT ACTM; PltSI.IO. ACT Of 18:i7, J^SS 1, M, 0. ;i. A tlisolaiiuor of a part of an iiivcti- tion cannot ailVct a prior j^ranU'O umlor tlio patoiit, milfss ho at'ocpis of it ; ho may rofiist; to bo allW'loil l»y it. /Smith V. J/«r<'«T, 4 Wost. I aw Jour., 62. — Kank, J.; I'a., IHU). 4. WliiMV a (lisclaiinor niado by a pnt- cnti'O Htatcd that "it was to opt-rati) to till' fXtt'Mt of tlu' iiittMvst in siiitl lottfrs patent vcstctl" in tlu> patontei'; /fcl!/ V. Foot,; 14 How., 'JUl.— CuiiTis, .1., Sup. CM., IH.VJ.] .'■'. Fndor this soot ion the owner of a soelion.al iiiierost may diseJ.iiin a piirt of tho thiuf? patented, whieh will bo con- sidered a part of tho orijj^inal patent, to the extent of his interest ; but the pat- eiifi'e is not eompellcd to join in it, nor will it alVeet any one exeept him makiiiuf it, and those elalmini; under him. J\)t- t(r V. Holland, jSIS. — Ixokksom,, J. ; Ct., 1858. 0. After such a disclaimer a dilVerent claim of right is secured to thodiselaim- ant iVom what is purported to be se- cured to the patentee; ditl'erent claims of right in the same invention are se- cured to ditlerent sectional owners. Ibid. 7. The disclaimer of part of an in- vention, provided such disclaimer arose from in:t ' vertenoy, accident, or mistake, Avill no prevent the patent fro'n em- bracing .lie part so disclaimed, or, .i re- issue of his patent. Jlaydcn, Kx parte, MS. (App. Cas.) — Meuuick, J. ; D. C, 18G0. Section 8. This 80»^(ion, 8o far ns it pros iih'g t;,]- additiouH to existing patents, is niK'nltil by act of March 4 th, 1801. [/-;,/. I Se(^ii>n 9. See also Disci, aimku. 1. ^0 of the act of 18;{7, conti'mplated the riileof the comnionlaw- tluil iraiiai- «'nt embrjiees diiferent maihiiiO'i, and any one »)f them is not new, or was not tlio invention of tho patentee, or the like the whole patent would be void— as being then in full force, ami tlierttoii! sought to mitigate it hy prnvi(li.i,^r tlmt, under the cases therein meutioiieil, tho patent should, be good to the extent of the j>ateutee's invention. Wi/ct/t. y. Stone, 1 Story, i>88, 289.— Snuiv, J.; Mass., 1840. 2. The disclaimer mentioned in this section applies solely to suits brought after the disclaimer is filed. //>/(/„ 'jiil. ;<; This section is intended to cover "inadvertences and mistakes" of law, as well as inadvertences and inistakos of fact, riiid., 21);t, 2!).'), 4. The doctrine that a patentee may take out a valid |)atent for a combina- tion, anil in it iiu'lude a right to each distinct iniprovement, is conlinneil hy the obvious intent of this section, which gives a patentee a right of action for a piratical use of any of liis invented im- provements, -which is distinctly stated in his patent, though he may by mistake, accident, or inadvertence, have cliiimod others of which he was not the inven- tor. Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story, C21. — Stouy, J.; Me., 1843. 6. Prior to the act of 1 830, if the pat- KTATLTKS, CONSTULC'IION OK; H. 3. >s it proviili's lor ilt'iits, is ri'iK'iiltil LHOl. [iii/.j a. 8:iV,i't>iiti'miilatcil il:i\v- -tluil irii|i;it- muchiiios and any •w, or was nut iliu •nloc, or till' liki', ould l>i! voi'l— an ire, iunl lluMi'tiiiv by pri'v'nli.i,' tlial I'iii mi'iitioiii'il, tlio (1 to tlio extent of ntioii. Wj/cth V. 'J81).— Stouy, J.; mi'iitioncd in this to wiiits l»nnii,'ia s iilotl. Ihid., 'Jilt. iiiteiuliHl to cover mistakes" of law, nees anil iiiistakis 2'.»r). lU. !i patditoo may iiit tor a coniliina- II rif^lit to oai'h ,, is continued by this section, wliich ivlit of action for .1 d1' l>is invented im- s distinctly stated \e may by mistake, ence, have ckiiniod as not the iuveu- nan, 2 Story, C21. of 1830, L' the pat- w PATRNT acts; I'l'iiijo. AOT OK |h;i7, ^ !». ih:i!>, J5 (i, rntee cluinied more tliaii he had invent- ed, his |iali>iit was void, lint nnder this mrtion the patent is not absohitely void, lieeanse (he palenlee claims more than he has actnally invent«Ml, bnt is valid tor ho iinich as is trnly and fximi fiik Ills own ; bnt to secure the beiu>lits of this section, the s|)ecilication nnist Mate in what the improvement consists. /', ^r.v()// v. U'ooiAv/, ;< Mclican, 2H). — M.Kkan, J. ; Ohio, IH4:i. (J. Prim- to the act of IH.'tU, a patent was void if tlie claim extended beyond the invention. I'ndi'r }; (I of the act of ls:Ul, it was v«>iil if 11 snbstimtial pari had been patented, »»r desiribcil in a |»rinted pid)li«'alion. ^ 1.') of the same act, saved the patent from bciniif void, if the patentee believi'd himself to be the lirsl inventor. J^ of the act of 18;t7 eidarjjjcd the rights of the pal*'ntee, providinij, notw ilhstandinj; >^ IT) of the i,ot of is;!(i, that the patent should not he void, where ho had acted in j^ood faitii, if thn.n^rh mistake or inadver- li'iiee he had dainicd more than he hail invented, and that he mi^ht maintain suit on the ]>art actnally inventc(l by him, ])rovided ho tiled, within a reasini- able time, a disclainu'r of the parts not invented by him. Smith v. A7//, T) IMc- Lean, St,Hr).— iMi'LiCAN,.!.; Ohio, IHIO. 7. Where a i)atent contains several claim', and the invention end)raced in one is not new, or is useless, the paton- toe niidor this section and i^ 7 may still maintain an acticm for an infrinj^ement, although he did not, before action brought, make a disclaimer of the ]iart claimed without right ; bnt he will not be entitled to costs. Hall v. Wihs^ 2 lilatdif., 198.— Nelson, J.; N. Y., 1851. 8. And if in the progress of a trial it turns out that a disclaimer ought to have been made as to part claimeil, the plaint iir may still re«"over, but will not bo entitled to costs. //>/>/., h)8. Act op 1830. Cmai'. 88. Section C. 1. The dati' of a patent nniy bo altered to correspond with thai of a fori'ign pat- ent, previously (ak»'n out by the inven- tor, whi're (lie inislak** has not arisen from any frandnleiil or deceptive inten- tion. />((»ni lid's Cittit., I Ojiin., .•|;(r). ■ Ni:i,soN, Atty. (len., Ik It. 'J. I'mler this seclion, if th(> dcuncslle patent, in a case wherc^ a foreign patent has been j)revionsly iddained, purports to give an exclusive right for fonrteen years from its daU', instead of from tlm dal(f of tlu' foreign patent, it is void, as having been issued without auth(»rily of law ; but the error is not fatal, and may be corrected on application to the Pat- ent Ollio'. Smith V. Kh/, r» IMcLcan, 7h, so.— Md.KAN, .1.; Ohio, IHI!). M. The pr((viso of (his section, as to when a home patent shall bear tlu^ date of :i I'creign patent, relales only to such patents as are (tfyplivd fur here itftcr the issue of a foreign palenl. French \\ /iOj/iTS, MH. — (iuiKK, Kank, J.).; I'a., IHf)!. ■1. Where, thert-fore, an application for a ))atent was made in this coimtry in April, IHUH, and acted on in that month, but a patent was not actnally issued until June '20th, 18-tO, at whii^Ii time the patent was dated, .and a foreign patent was t)btained in August, lH;i8, /li'ld, as the applicitiou here was beforo the foreign patent, that the grant of the patent here was under the general en- actments of the act of ]8n0, and its term was pro])erly from its date. Ibid. ll ..j^tf •,-• > ■til MtaKiH -:=5-,i,-,-i!(,- A 3 IWi ik jm 612 STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF; B. 3. PATKNT ACTS; I'tni.ir. ACT or 1839, g 7. 5. A i>;it('iit is not void, Ik'ciuho it docs not, on its face, bear tiic same date witli a foreign patent. If it is not, for any reason, exempt from the operation of the statute, on sueii sulyeet, tin; only cU'eet is to limit the monopoly to loiir- teen years from the date of the foreign patent. 0' lie ill if v. Morse^ 15 How., 112.— Tanky, Ch. J.; Sup. Ct., 1H5;}. Section 1. See also Pniou Usk. 1. The seventh section of the act of 1839 allows the use of an invention, even with leave o''the inventor, for two years before application for a patent, without invalidating his right to a patent ; a for- tiori, the use by a third jierson, or a sub- sequent inventor, after the invention and before the issuing of a patent to the first inventor, without liis consent, is no bar to the issuing of a patent to the first in- ventor, inidreath v. Heath, MS. (App. Cas.)— Ckancii, Ch. J.; D. C, 1841. 2. Under this section the purchaser must be a purchaser from the inventor himself, before his application for a pat- ent, and not from a wrongdoer without Lis knowledge or against his will, l^ier- son V. Eagle Screw Co., 3 Story, 400, 407.— Stoky, J.; K. I., 1844. 3. This section, allowing the use and sale of an invention for two years before the application for a patent, is in the na- ture of a statute of limitations. Ilovey v. Henry, 3 West. Law Jour., 155. — WooDBUUY, J. ; Mass., 1845. 4. The object of this section is two- fold: first, to protect the person who has used the thing patented, from any liability to the patentee or his assignee ; and, secojjid, to protect the rights granted to the patentee against any iiifiingcnuin by any other persons. Mci'lnni \, KiinjsUmd, 1 How., 208, 200.— Ual^^ WIN, J.; Suj). Ct., 1843. 5. This section relieved the pafontco from the ettects of the former laws aiid their construction by the court, wliijoit puts the person who has had such xWmw use on the same footing as if luj had a special license from the inventor, wliich if given before the application for a pat- ent, would justifv a continued use of it after it issued, without liability. Ihui 209. 0. It is not limited to patents for ma- chines, manufactures and compositions of matter, but embraces inventions for modes of doing a thing, as a new im- provement in the act of casting iron. Ibid., 209. 7. Nor is it to be construed as con- fined to a specific ni.achine as distin- guished from im invention or tliin*uch juior y; us it" lio liud a invi'utor, wliicli, licatioii I'lir aput- ntimicd \ise of il liability. Ibid., patents for ma- and compositions •cs inventions for ng, as a new iin- t of casting iron. construed as coii- nacliine as distiii- intion or thing p:it- 1 •' newly invented e, or cotn])osition |h invention," moan jed," and the words •efer to " the thing id," Avhercof the [patent, but not to [improvement on a Ibid., 210. exclusive reference of a machine to an jot to a renewal or ton v. West Chester •McLean, J. ; Snp. „ product of an in- le of the thing in- 'section. The sale ; be a sale of the in- article. Booths 250.— Nelson, J.; PATENT ACTS; IM III.IC. ACT OF 1K39, g^i^ 7, 11. 10. This section virtually extends the 1 atchli'c's ]>rivih'go to sixteen yciirs iu- ftratl of loiirli'cii. McCurintfkw Si y- vioin; 2 niatchf., 254. — Nklson, .1.; N.Y., 1851. 11. This section gives no protection to tlio>oii an in- veiitioii or discovery disidoscd in a pat- ent, whose specitlcation may hai»pen to In- (lct'c<'tive or iiisiitlicient. (tmnhjiuir V. />.'.'/, MS.— (JjuKK, J.; X.J., lHr)'J. l^.Tlicprovision in J^ 7, of the act IHU!), as to the use of an invention, relates to the case of an use, sale or license to use, (riven or made ami claimed under the inveiit(n', who admits and claims the piivilege. Tiie clause should read thus ; "The patent shall not bo held invalid bv reason that the inventor has sold or allowed his invention to be useil prior to the application for a patent, unless he las ahaiidoned it to the public, or that such sale or p.ior use has been for more thiin two years ])rior to such apjdication for a patent." Kllithorpe v. liohrrtson., MS. (Afip. Cas.) D. C— Moksem,, J.; 1858. 13. The priviler;o granted by § 7 of the act of 18U9, is applicable only to the in- ventor, or those claiming under him, andthisconstruction is sustained by /*t'/r- mi y.Eof/k Sereio Co.,S Story, 402. The use of an invention by an independent inventor, or under a separate and inde- pendent j)atent, is not such a case as is contemplated by that section. 13eech v. Tucket; MS. (App. Cas.)- Mousell, J,; D. C, 18G0. U. Tills section provided a remedy fir cases where the conduct of the party as to the s.ale of his invention did not show an actual ab.andonnient. It also secures the rights of those who may have purchased or constructed any newlv-inventcd machine prior to the 43 application for a patent. Sniiders v. lAxjitii., a Wall., Jr. — (IitiKu, J.; Pa., IHOl. I,"). The obvious constnu-tion of it is, that a pm-chasc, sale or prior use shall not invalidate, miless it amounts to ai. abandonment to the public. Ibid. Stdiun 11. See also Appeals, TJ. 1. The provision that " the decision of the judge shall govern the further proceedings of tiio commissioner in the case," applies only to so much of the case as is invcdvcd in the reasons of ap- peal ; and the appeal itself can only be considered .as an appeal to so much ot the de<'ision of the commissioner as is ail'ccted by such resisons. Arnold ^ />/.sA(;;>,(App. Cas.) MS. — CuANcu, C.J.; 1). C\, 1841. 2. The officer of the Patent OHlce at- tending before the judge on .an appeal is not to bo considered as counsel for the Patent Oilice, or as an advocate for cither of the parties litigant, but only attends to explain the decision of the conniiissioner. Perry v. Cormlt, (App. Cas.)MS.— CitANcn, C. J. ; D. C, 1847. 3. All the conditions j)rescribed by this section must be complied with as prerequisites, before thejiidge can t.ake jurisdiction. His jurisdiction is special and limited, and no other power can bo exercised except that expressly given. Greenough v. Clarke, ^IS. (Ai)p. Cas.) — INIonsELL, J. ; D. C, 1853. 4. The jn-ovision of this section re- quiring the judge to hear and determine appeals " on the evidence produced be- fore the commissioner," is to be con- strued with reference to § 7 of the act of 1830, providing that reasonable uotico Mtl ill the Patent nnico l»v lilt' piiiiiiirv cxamiimr.-t «>r tlio l>o:ii'il of A|)|i(mIs wi'Vi' ill iiiti'iilini'nt of law, tlu> jndicial actn «>!'tlu' Ci'iiiiiiis- .Hidiiur, and had iiu Icg.-d viiliditv until harictluiicil liy him. 'I'hcy uito tlu' orjj;;iiiH of the Coiiimissioiit'r to inni'li'i' Jiiid fnUijfitm hi.H jiidginciit, ,'iiid till iho Coiinnissloiu'r gave validity to their judicial acts l>y IiIh Jhit, thoy had no V'<^',\\ evidence !is jiidi,'iiieiil, Snmrdcit V. /^urcc, MS. (Ai>ii. Cas.) — DrM.oi-, J., D. C, 1801. 2. Under the net of 1 HOI tlio |)riinaiy cxaniiiicrs and examiners in eldcf aie Tocof;ni/('d ;im jiulifiiil ojfiri rs, aclinij indei>endently of the ('oinniis>ioner, who can onli/ control t/icDi, when their jiiil,i;mcnt in due course conu's l,>efore the Conmiissioner on appi-al. Pjif/. ','. Their acts are not the acts of the Commissioner, but tiieir own acts. They are no lonujcr mere organs of the CommissioinT, but independent officers. IIo can only reach and overrule them when their judjiincnts come regularly before him, on (t})pet exercise o*" coiistitutiuiKi, authority. And it ought to bucoiistrui'il not to operate retrospectively, op (x fiiiHt J'ti'ti), unless that constniciioii ii unavoiihible. lilanchiinl v. ,Sj>riii/ue ;t Sumn., 542. — Sroiiv, J. ; Mass., lH;ii). 'A, A reserviition in favor of as.signoc!) in a special act of Congress extendin'.,' a patent, will not make the act iiiicoiisii. tulional on the ground that Congress is only authorized to confer privileges) on iitvcntora. The power of Congress, to reserve rights and jtrivileges to as- signees, is incidental to the geiaTal power conferred to promote the pre;,'. ress of the useful arts. Jilnnclinnrt Oitn-!S!ovlc Co. V. Wurmr, 1 lilatclif., •-'71, 270.— Nki.so.\, .1.; Ct., IHKI. 4. Congress may, by special ad ex- tend a patent even after the expiration of the original patent. Ibid., 270. 5. Congress may exercise its consti- tutional power as to granting rightv to inventors by special acts or otlierwisc, by a geiuu-al system. Hloomer v. Stul- Icj/, .5 McLean, 101. — McLkan, J,; Ohio, IHoO. 0. And may extend a patent by spe- cial act, after such patent has been onto extended. Ibid., 102. 7. Alleged fraud and misreprcscntn- tion in the passage of an act of Con- gress, as an act granting a special pat- ent, will not be presumed ; but such an act will be regarded by the courts as the law of the land, until it is repealed. Gibaon v. Gifford, 1 Blatchf., 531.— NEL.SON, J. ; N. Y., 1850. 8. A special act in relation to any particular patent, is to be considered .is engrafted upon the general acts relating to patents. They are statutes in pari STATl TKS, CON.sTUrCTloN OF; 15.4. h. •n I Af TO. PATIHT ACn; PUT ATI. HLUP Or TIIOMAS SLANOHAaD. n t'xtcniliii;; a ,1 UTIll!*, 0\\'^]\{ iiitiv, as to III) ♦' o<)iistitiitii)iia« to Ik; const iiuitl ei'tivc'ly, or tx coiiMtntclioii \^ rd V. l^/>riiffve, J.; Mass., iHilO. \«)r of :is>ii4iu'C((, rt'H-* oxti'iiiliuii u ,ho act uiuoiisii' thai ('oiijirt'Ks is liT |)nvili"4i's 1)11 ■ of ('oiiiiiiss, to »i-iviU'jJ!t')* to us- to tlio fji'iii-nil [•oiiioti! tilt' iiI'ol;- ts. Jilum'liitnl'i iinu.r, 1 Ijlatelif., ,; Ct., IHIO. »y Hj)i'cial act ex- or tlu! exiiinUiou I hid, 'JTU. ori'iso its ('otisti- runtiiijj; Y\tlicr. Jilootuci' \, Mi'(^h(iwiin, It Ilr<(!/i(e, 3 Suiim., 281!. — Stouy, .1.; Mass., 18;(H. 3. The more inisuomor t)f tho name (if a person t)r eorporalion named in the act, as of a person to whom a p.'itcnt is irninled by the iiot, if tho person roally iiitiiided can be collocted from tho terms Xflii!«iv(' |irivili<^i> in tlio txtcmli'tl tffin. /l/'itii'/iitrro liiotu tlu' pro^^roHs of tlio useful arts l>y securing to invonlors, for liiiiitt-il ttnics, tlic cxclusivo right to their «liHcoveri«-<. J bill., '270. 0. Thiii aot of 1830 (li/>/, that lhiMpro\iNo did nut aiithori/.e the use of the iniproveinnit Niilmcqiicnt to the date of the seconil imt. eiit ; Kiid that for mucIi Nidmcqueiit ii«t< the parties using \\er«> lialile to diiiiia- ges to the patentee. I bid., '24N, 2');i. .'I. Thu act for tlie relief of Oliver Kvaiis, is not to lie construed so an tn exempt either from treble or bin^rl,, damagOH, thu uh«, Mubseipient to th,. passage of mieh act, of the niacliiticrv mentioned therein, which was encti-,! Hubsecpient to the expiration of the oi'i>r- inal patent, and pre\iouH to the |i:i>>K:ijr(. of such net. h'l'iins v. Jordan, Cm., '202, '204.— Washinoton, J.; .Sup. ft,, IHIrt. 4. The right to recover damages for using his patent nriscH not under this law, but under the general patent law of 17n:l. /bid., 20.1. 5. Though this act gav«! to Kvaii'^tlu' exclusive property not only in the m- tirf iniprovnnent, but in the «ever oi'i){- IH to the |t;ixsuu(' Jtififon, t.'iii., 5N, J.; Sup. Cl., ivcr < not imdcr tliii* iii'ral piiti'iil luw ^avo toKvaiis the [t only in llif (/*• tlu' /tllUT'd IIKI- rof the decision of Evans V. Kiiton, eption to the pen- the whole hopinT- \\Q inventor of it Jettkk, a Wiish.. ON,J.;Pa.,lHl^'. rs only that of inventor, and lii« )vcnieut, must be I'HiVArit M !-< i'Hiv\i>: KKi.iKr or wm. wnoowoani. K>t forth m) ax to riearly tliMtiii(XuiNh it. Tlii't not liiivin^ \wv\\ done, ho eannol ri'e«»vt'r. /A/*/., I'.'h. H. Tin' patrnt «if Oliver Kvati« in not, pillier hy lli«' Mpetrial art patH«'d for liin rrlief, oi" by virtue of the dt'i'i?«ion of the Hu|irenie CJourt {Kidnt v. JCiUon, i\ Wheat., IH|m), an exception to the j,'«'n- cral prineiph'M ^overnin;; the isHue of iiiitenls. If l"> is not the original inven- tor of the tliiii!{M patented to him, or if hilt iiivi'Ution i« not jirtipt-rly M-t forth, he eaiinof recover. /'Ji'dnn v. /'Jiifon, ;i \Va!*li., <'>!, -tJ'J. — W.VhmNuioN, J. ; I'a., IHIH. 1). 'rh<»u<;h, under the j^eneral pat«'nl law, a donlit nii^ht arif^e \vh< iher im- iirovenienls on ditlerent machines could rij^iilarly he comprehended in the namo tialetit, HO as to j^ive a rii^ht to the ex- clusive une of the Heveral machines sep- anitelv, nx ^vell as a rij^ht to the exclu- bive use of those machines in cotnliina- tioii; the ."act for the relief of Oliver Kvaiis," authorizes the issuing to him of a patent ^rantiii^ to him tlu> full iind oxcliisive ri|;lit in his invention and im- iii'oveinents in the art of manufaclurinn of the court hclow in Hi'HhB v. Kalnit, 'A Wash., 4A|, that if Kvans' patent was for the hopperdioy, hecoulilnot recover unli«is he waHlIn! first inventor thcreol', and thai if it wan a patent for an improvement on the ho|»> per-hoy, it wum defective in not upecify. ing the improvement, atllrmed. /•Ji'inm v. /''n, 7 Wheat., 4;il, i:!."!. — Smuv, J.; Sup. Ct., IH'J'J. 12. Decision of Wahiiinotos, J., in J'Ji<,in$ v. llvttirk, :» Wash., ^'l\-\'.Vi (iintf tl), as to the force ;iiii| extent of Kvans' patent, athrmcd, /'Jrnnn v. //it- tifk, V Wheat., 47t).— SroiiY, J. ; Hup. (!t., IH'2'2. 1.1. Oliver Kvans, for his invention in the art of manufacturing Hour, received protection originally hy means of an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, pann- ed .March •JOtli, 1787 — hefore any act of Congress ha«^ M^-'"* d J5r~. I- '■'"^llji ftUouittmoNs. or HKi'iUNiiM k\U oiilKM, ii»:«uua Wt, ON MVnfRW. Wi>oi|w4>illi |»iitfiil for M'Vt'ii ytir iVitiH iH-io, tio ri'Mi'rvntioti or itrnvUit in t'livor of u^«i;{iii>(>r iiiiilor tilt* llrMt ttiriii, or llio HrHt l'\lfl|i>l')l| IIIkIiT till' lift itl' IH.'I)), tliry liiivc no li^lit ill tlu' tfiiii fxlciiil i><| hy Con^ivM, iiihI ntniiut vvvn con- tliiiii> llu> u»it of iiiiicliiiU'N hflt«> hy tliciii (It ill*' fkpii'iilioti of the flint t'Xti'iiKioii. (I'ifniin V. 10, r»:H.~N>;i.HoN, J. ; N. Y., IH.'.O. :i. So lii'M iiIho in .)fim>inr. '/'ttfiiim., MS.— Wooiiiii i:v, TiiMw. I.F.; It. I,, iHflO; liloiiiin.' V. \'0; iiti*., iH.tO. SrCC.KSTIONS, UK.MMNt; OK. ■ 8cu ulso Mkciiami', Suti.i, ()v. 1. Tilt" HiijjtycsfioiiM of flic ini'dnmic ornpliiyctl to make ii niacliiiic, or of otliiTM, iiH to its form or proportioim, mv not iiivontioiiH or im|irov«>iiH'iitx for Avliirh a |t;ili'iit could !»«' olilaiiicil, nor can tlicy iiivaljilatc llic )»;it('iil fur tin- thlii}^ to wliiili (licy arc ;i|i|iii('(l. /'(/«• noek V. Ih'itlo^/ur, 4 ^VaHll.. 514.— AV.vsiiiNGTo.v, J. ; I'a., 18'J.'». 2. Kxccjit tills W!is so, very fcu' pal- cntH could be HUpporteil ; as iit most caHt's it might probably be shown that whilst the thinpf patented was con- Btructiiij;, or before it was broii<.jlit to perfection, many such improvements ■were adopied in conse(iuence of such suggestions. Ibid, .'>44. 3. The suggestions of a mechanio of alterations in the form or proportions of a machine, as designed by the in- vi'iiiur, will hot be KuOlciciii to itcprUo tlui iiiVfiilor of thu nu'rll of ihi> invvm lloii, or art'ett Ihi* validity of liin piiriitt, if iiicorponitnl within it ; nor would it Ih>, a* to Miich alteration)*, a diMiiMry I wliittll wtMild ehtillo thu liiecliunic to tiiku out a patent for tliein. Mnlton v. /ll'iif'H, i Wa.^h., a«'i. — Wa»iiini,toMI'HON, J.; X. Y., IH'J7. ((. And it is sutticient if such a sug> ge^tioll was made by such ot' it per- son, w ilhoiit being carried out or patdit- ed by him. J !,;,(. lo:t. 7. To show invention in aiiuiliii' than the patentee, because of siiggcv tions m:ide by siudi other persmi, tiic ^pu^stil)n fur the jury is, whrilicr Mirli person communicated subiitantially the invention, so that without more iiivuii- tive power the other could have ap- plied it. A mere hint is not siitliciiiit, nor, on the other hand, need he cuiii- municate every minute thing about the invention ; but he must h.ave cuiiiiiiuui- cjited the substance. Alihn v. /hirnj, 1 Story, 338, 3y9.--ST0UV, J.j Mass., 1840. 8. The testimony of a witness, how- ever, that he gave such comniunicatiiui as to an invention, is in the nature ul ;i TK«lfN'ir\r. 'IKItMS, AM) PlfKASKa MI>:«MMI iir, WHO M4T fHOVI. 011 It to iU|>rlvo •I* till' lnvi'ii- A' hi* |i!iti'tit, nor wiml'l il a tUM-oviry Illl'i'llillllO to ii> wvrv to Imj ■ liny |iuU«t« ) tilt* lltl'I'llUII- thu ntitcliitii' till ulcii nn to uli:<|nn<<;il»l«' to til n-ul'tty con- i', ftlitl uiK'tlirr uiil takt's uitt it lent is viii'i, n^ dl' tlu' |illtllll>'l'. IVlIU', lt»J.— t if such il ^^l^,'• u.li «!' 'T i..r- •.loiitorimU'Mt- ,,n ill iiii'ithfr Imso ttl' sii.u'j^i'!" Ihi'i" ItiTMili, till' L, whithiT siuh mh;.tfiiiti;i!ly tlie ,ut iiinri' iuvL'U- I'.ml.l liavi" aj)- JH IH>t Mltlil'U'llt, 1, iieinl hi' wiu- [thin^i ahdiit tlie have I'oiiiiiuiiii- [hkn V. I'rfnj, »KY, J.; ^I'l^'''' |iv witiK'ss, how- comJiiuirwatioa [i the iiuturo ol ' .tiifi'iiiiinti, nn>l In nlwnyn r(*(;nrili<(1 nn , Illll't'lllUII kil|)| til' t'Villltlll'l'. /fn'ti., 'I, 0. Ill onlor to iiivtiliiliitu II piKi'iit (III llti' pcrouinl th:it thii |iiil>'iil till not <'oiuM'i\i> ihi* iih ti rtiihnilini in the iinpriivt'iiii'iit, it iiiiiKt ii|>|M>;ir ihiil llif ,ii^}{(>itlliiiiM, if niiy, iiiiiih to him hy othiTK, «inihl fiiniioh nil '■ iiiloniiii- { (ion iircc»«ary to ••iiahic him Im ••oii- i.lrui'1 thv iiii|)roVfiii«>iit. In other u onlx, till* Kiii;^i>M(ioiiM mii^t hiivo h«'(>ii Niillt- 1 rifiit to ciiahli' him to i-oiiNtnict a com* picli' ami pfi I'ftt mtichint'. /'iVN v. ' //,///, 2 Hlutilif., 'j;it.— Nklhun, J.;1 X.Y., IH.-H. 10. It' iIh'V Kim|)ly niihil him in iirriiiiii; at llio nsi'tui rcMilt, ami if, al'lor all tin- soLr^Ji'-tioiis, tiicro wuh >iinii'ihii>]L; h-ll tor him to tU'viso iiiid work out \>y luH own nkill iiml iii^c- unity, thfii h«> is, in «-onti>in|ilation of law, to he I't'^ranli'il an the first ami iirijjinal tlisiovfivr. //>/ sii^^ov lioniiiiitl communifutioiih of another ^o til iiiukc up a coiiiiiii'tt' ami pnti'ct ma- ciruic, t'tnliiiilyiiiir all that is cnil raci'il ill till' ]>utiiit suhs(>i|itciitly isKiU'd to tlio imrty to wl "mi tho suj;p'stions woro iimilc, the patt'tit is invaliil, hcraiiso llic ival (lixovi-ry hcloii^s to aiiotluT. Il>iil., V':it, tJ. liii|uirit'H tmulc, or information or Milviie rect'ivi'il from inon of srirnco, in the course of iiii iiivi'iilor's rcscarclu's, will not impair his rij^lit to tliccliaracti'r of im inventor. It iiiakos no ditU'rciU'o wiii'tlicran invi'iitor ih-rivo his informu- liiiii iVoin honks, or from conversation villi men skilled in science. (/JinHlif ■;. yiunc, 1 5 II., 11 1 .—Tan icy, Ch. J. ; Sup. Ct., 185.3. 13, If the ide.i involved in tho putent- «1 article had occurred to others, or lintl j'omp fn tho pnli'tilni' from otlititw, •till, if till' patentee Inul lieeii the firit lo \i\\» to tliiit iilt'ii n iiKcfiil and prncthk nil form, hi< will Ixteomiideri'd the tlr*t inventor. Ti'»f v. /VoV/m I MeAIIU., 40.— Mf.\i,t.inr»;ii, .1. ; Cal., |N.^.'^. II. .Mvi'(« eoiiVersiliioiiN iihoiit tho praetieiihility of mi jinprovniient, or sntxtfeNtioiiN IIS to the milliner in which it niiuht he carried out or iiccnmplixh* ed, will not of themselves defeat tllO olninm to ori^imility of him who per* feetH lll« ideii iiinl s ires ii patent. ./lotnon v. Min>ri\ .M.S. — liKwiir, J.; Ohio, I MHO. lA, lint liny inforimition ton palentco, Niitlicient to eiiahle him toeoiistriiet tho thiii)^ ilself, would dextroy theoriuinal- ilyof the invention. Such kiiowledi'.', however, must he detiliite and tatij^iole, mid siitllcient of itsulf to entihio tho party to uhom imparted to constniet the tiling. Ihitl. TECIINICAI. TKU.MS AND IMIW.VSKS. 1. "Lnteriil motion," in mechanics, does not mean, us the term ordinarily siL(nilies, a side motion, hut :i loii<_ritudi» mil one. Jiroitk'x v. Hiiktutl, ;i Mclieun, 4.51._M(;Lkan, .1.; Ohio, IHJt. 'J. 'I'he word " stilistantial," is not susce|itilile of an exa< t - vey V. Stevens, .') Wood. e with another, when a is the same in all impoitant i)articulars. It nmst be the Bamc material, when material is impor- tant — of the same thickness, Avhen thick- ness is important — be applied in the same way, condition, and extent, when either of these circumstances are im- portant. Adams v. Edtcards, 3IS. , J.; Mass., 1848. 7. Experts may be examined to ex- plain terms of art, on the principle of cuique in sua arte credendnm. Corn- ing V. Burden, 15 IIow., 270. — Guieu, J.; Sup. Ct., 1853. 8. "End i)lay" of a shaft is its lateral play within the boxes in which it runs. " Free play" is its imcheckcd action. " Free end play" is its unchecked lateral action in its revolutions. Page v. Feriy, MS.— WiLKiNs, J. ; Mich., 1857. 9. "M.ay, in fact," does not signify "shall be." Ibid. 10. Experts may be examined as wit- nesses, to explain terms of a't, and the state of the art at any given tiuio. The maxim ofcuifjuc in sua arte nrd^'ntliou permits tlu'm to be exainiiu'd as to quc'Htions of art or scioiice peculiar lo their trade or profession, ^\'ill(l||l> \ K Y. «6 K Ji. It., 21 IIow., 100, loi.J (JitiKU, J.; Sup. Ct., 1858. THEORY. 1 . A patent cannot be legally ohtaiiici] for a mere philosophical or abstract the- ory ; it can only be for such a theory re- duced to practice in a |)articular stnic- t m"e or combination of part s. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mas., 187. — Stouy, J.; Mass, 1817. 2. The mere speculation of a philoyo. ])her or mechanician, which has never been tr!"d by the test of experieiiee and never put into actual operation, will not deprive a subsequent inventor, who has employed his labor and his talents in putting it into pnictice, of the reward due to his ingcjuiity and enterprise. Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mas., 305.— Stokv J.; Mass., 1817. 3. A discovery of some new iirinciple, theory, elementary truth, or an im- provement upon it, abstracted from its a])plication, is not a new invention. Whitney v. Enimctt, Bald., 31 1.— Baid- wix, J.; P.I., 1831. 4. But when such discovery is ^t- plied to any practical purpose, in the new construction, operation, or eftects of machinery or compositioji of matter, producing a new substance, or r eM one in a new way, by new machinery, or by a new combin.ation of the parts of an old one, operating in a pecu'iar, bet- ter, cheaper, or quicker method, it is a " discov"ry," " invention." or " improve.- TKADK MAUKS, A. 6P3 PKOrKHTY IN; IN WHAT KXIHTH. wme new jtritioiplo, truth, or an ira- I abstract ('(1 from its a new iuvoiitiuii. ,Baia.,311.— Bald- iiH'iit,'' within the acts ol" CongrcHH. //,/,/„ :ni,;n2. 5, An iinperfi'ct anil inconiph'to in- vention, rostinj^ in nuMV tln'ory or in in- (illi'i'lual notion, or in uncertain experi- int'uts, and not aetually redueed t«) prae- tiic, and embodied in some distinct nia- cliinory, apparatus, maniifaeture or eom- itosition of matter, is n<.t, and, indeed, laiin't be, patentable under the j»atent liiw.-. Jiciil V. CutUr, 1 Story, 500.— Stouy, J.; Mass., iHtl. 0. If an invention be the mere speeu- lation of a piiilosopher or meehanieian ill his closet, and he takes no step to- ward securiu}^ a patent, but keeps his jiviMition a secret, and another ])erson, who is also an original but sid)se(pieiit inventor of the same thinj;, obtain a patent for it, and bring it into use, the patentee in a suit at hiw will be eonsid- iml the first inventor. lUhhvdth v. math, :MS. (App. Cas.)— CuANcii, Ch. J.; 1). C\, 1841. T. It is not enougli to conceive the idoii of a new manufacture, or of a new and useful instr»nuent. That aloiu> is no honelit to mankind, and is not Avorthy the patronage of government. The new idea innst bo reduced to some ]»ractical use before it can become the subject of a patent, or bo set up and relied ui)on to defeat one. Many v. Jagf/cr, 1 Blatehf., 383.— Nki,sox, J. ; N. Y., 1 848. 8. The mere speculation of a jdiiloso- pher or Jiiechanie, never put into prac- tice or operation, will not deprive a sub- sequent inventor, who has employed liis labor and talents in putting it into prac- tice, of the reward duo to his ingenuity and enterprise. ItieJi v. Lipp'mcott^ 20 Jour, Fr. Inst., od Ser., 15. — GuiKii, J. ; Pa., 1853. 0. The same position laid down in Uicd v. Cutter, 1 Story, 599 {ante 5), held also in the following case. Mnr- nhnll V. Ntr, MS. (Aj)p. Cas.) — DuNi.or, J.; D. C, 1853. TRADK-MAUKS. A. rilOl'KUTY in; l.V WHAT MAT KXI8T. . . 683 ■I. Who may AcyriuK I'ropkuty in CB7 <'. I'ltOl'KUTY in; now KHCrKCTKD fiJl D. Violation or ; what is (Wl l-i. WllKN VIOLATION OV WILL HB KK- HTUAINKI) 601 A. PuOl'KItTY IN ; m WHAT MAY KXIST. 1. The right of a jjcrson in a trade- mark does not ])artake in any consiatent or c»)pyright. T,i :hr v. Carpenter, 2 Sand. Ch., 017 (Ct. Errors). — Si'exckk, Senator; N. Y., 1840. 2. Another is at full liberty to manu- facture and vend the same article to any extent, and whenever he chooses. lie is only required to depend for his suc- cess upon his own character and fame, and not to pirate upon the trade-marks, the rights of others. .I7na., 017. 3. The assurance that a party can eiyoy the exclusive benefit of his trade- marks is among the highest incentives to ingenuity, laborious exertion, and honorable .and faithful condimt, and is one of the greatest securities to the public against imposition. Hmh, 017. 4. A label or trade-mark, when it has become known, is a Kj)ecies of prop- erty ; and the owner will be protected against the attempts of others to appro- ])riatc to themselves, by its use, the benefit which such owner is exclusively entitled to enjoy. Partridge v. 3fenck, IIow. App. Cas., 659. — Wuight, J.; N. Y.. 1848. f » 084 TUADK-MAUKS, A. I'lWrRllTY in; IN' WHAT RXWTS. T). Tlic owner of :in oriyiiiul (r:iiU»- ni:irk lias :i rii;|ii lo 1k> iirotcctcil in llic cvcliisivt' use dl" !»I1 llic in irks, I'nins, (ir synilidls :i|i|in)|»riatfil as (Icsit^nalinj; till' origin and owncrslilp ol' tin? lliinjj; to wiiicli at1i\(>il, Init he cainint he ])rol('ctr(| in tlios.* wliifli iiavc no sncli ri'Ialion. A)in>skiaij Mdiiitj] Co. v. Spun-, 2 Saiul. {S. C, OUO. — I)i;kk, J.; N. v., isio. 0. Uc lias no n;:j1it to appropriate a Rij^n or syinliol wliicli, iroin llic naliirt' of tilt' Out wliit'li it is nsod to siLrniiy, others may employ with ecjual I nit I', jiiul thereforo Imvo mi ('(pial ritjlit to employ for the same purpose. Ihid,, OOti, (U)7. v. The use of words, marks, or sijxns, indieatini; the name, mode, or proeess of manuiaetnre. ami its peeiiliar or r»'la- live i[iiali{y as distinti^uished from those indii-alin':; orijjjin or ownership, eaimot lie jiroleeied in any partienlar porsoii, lint are free lo sill wlii'ii used as an I'xpression of the facts which (hi'y really si label — as that is not a book within the i>rovisions of the statute — but upon the use and establish- ed reputation it has attained, and that its frau«hilent use is an injury to third per- sons. Coffeen v. lirunton, 4 AIcLean, 517, 519.— McLean, J.; Ind., 1849. 10. The right' which any person may have to the proteelion of tho mint as to his trade-mark does not depend i|i)0]] any exclusive right whi<-h he uiav ln> supposed to have to a particular naino or to a particular form of words; lij^ right is to be protecteil against iVaiid and this may be practised jigaiiist liim by means of a name, though tli(> pcisdi, |ir:iclising it may (lave a perfect right to use tiiat name, provided he does not ao- company the use of it with siicli dtln,,. circumstances as to cirect a fraud iiiion otln'i-s. Stone v. i^irlan, '.\ y\i\. |,;,\v. Kcp., .'Uil.— (^AMi'MKi.r,, J. ; N. Y., isr.o. II. Tnule-nuirks may be either tin- naiiu' of the maker; or symhnlicaj; ;i|. tlH> name of tiie eompoun■ '"any , is JV MH'cies of property whieh i]u' law ree- oi'iiizes and protects: and where, as :i menus of exteiidiii;^ his reputation and (tnidinji pnrcliaserH, he .'iHixes some murk or syinhol t(» desif^'iiale that iir- titleas his niannfactnre, lie is injio'ed l,v tlie sale of an urticle inannfactiired liv iiiiother, with his peculiar symhol or tnide-iiiark alllxed to it. Lrmoina v. Canton, '2 K. D. Smith, :J4V, .■JJH.— Da- i.v, J.; N. V., 1H,5.1. 17. There is no essentiid (liU'erenee in kind in refeiHMice to the protection to he I'ranted to trade-marks between estah- lisliiiK'iits formed for tho i>nrpose of trade and those fornu-d for th(! jnirposi? of I'lori! amusement. Chn'ufi/ v. Jftir- ^phij, 12 How. I'r., VS. — Cr.KiJKK, ,T. ; X.V., 18.->fl. 18. While neither exercises, or is cil- culated to exercise, 'iiiy d«'moraliziii<^ iiillueiice, ono is as widl entitUnl to tho protection of tho law us tho other. Ibid., 1H. 19. The ])laintiiV orujiuii/.cd a band of performers of negro minstrelsy, .and named thcra after himself, "Christy's Minstrels." Jfeld, that ho was entith!d to the exclusive use of that name, and liiat tlio assumption and use of that luamt l)y others, without a license, would be perpetually restrained by injunction. Ibid., 78, V9. 20. The privilege of a party to the exclusive enjoyment of ii tr!id(<-niarU does not rest upon a rii^lit of property therein, but on its pr* r iis(> and nppli* ciilioii in the m.Miiiier in which it has lieeii imitaled and eiiiployeil iiy (lie de- fcndiiiit. ]Vt\. 'Ji. ,\ '■^ )i(inii'" may in some (!ases be rij^litfiilly used iimj protected !is a trade- iii.'U'k ; but this is only when the mime in used as indic'itini; the true oiji^nn or ownership of the article oU'ered lor side — never when it is used to desijjnate the article itstdf, and has become, by ado|)tion and use, its prop(>r fipixdla- tioii. /'rfn'ift/r v. W'lfh, |;i How. I'r., ;»h7.— DiiKu, .1.; N. V., Ih.57. '2'2. All who have an eipial ritjht to maniifacturi' and sell the article have ;in e«pial rier- son is c:ireful to sell the arti<'le as )ire- pared and maniifactiircil by hiinsell', and not by .anotlKU'. //>/(ibj^ I'p. ton on Trade-Marks, 191. — lloiiKursox, J.; N. Y.,1860. 35. The principle, that the mere ii^e of a name to designate an article, woiil J give to those employing it the extdusive riglit to designate such article by siicli name, would be giving a copyriglit of a most odious kind, without reference to the utility of the .application, or the length of the title, and one that woiilJ be perpetual. Ibid., 195, 190. 30. Where a person used the words " Club-IIouse Gin," as a label, ami an- other manufacturer of the same article, designated his as " Old London Chil> House Gin," Held, that there could he no exclusive use of the words •• Chih- House," as these words had no roftr- ence to the origin, ownership, or imnii- facturc of the article. Ibid., 19G. TWADK MARKS, B. C87 rsuU'-Viiurk, letters il bolbre uiikimwii, t woril anil \>\\\)- rid HH Ills atldptttl IS acquired rights in will protiH't. ]hir- 2 Mo. Law, llt'p., J.; N.Y., 1H50. II appropriate a wonl he words gin, wine, ignato things or tho as his traiU'nwrk, iVB from usint,' ilua urer or vendor of an aire a right to an ex- iitof a word <»r words, (hed meaning, to (lual- ich article, so as to Jo- person of the riglit of to designate any other ly similar, wlieu tlie ,s have no reference to irship, or maimlueturc Corwin v. X'"?J/, I'p- irks, 191.— UouKUTsos, pic, that the mere u>e lignate an article, woiiU ploying it the exelnsive ,e such article Ity siuli giving a copyriglit of jnd, without refeveiice the application, or tlie tie, and one that would jicl, 195, 196. person used the words in," as a lahel, ami an- ircr of the same artide, [as " Old London Clul> M, that there could k [e of the wora9"Clul> so words had no refer- lin, ownership, or raana- irticle. IMd.,l^id., 501. 10. The privilege of deceiving the public for their own benefit is not a le- gitimate subject of connnerce, and th.erefore it makes no difference that the complainant has pinT/inscd tho right lo use the name of the first proprietor. A party asking equity, must come with clean hands. Ibid., 601. 11. Every manufacturer, and mer- chant for Avhom goods ai'c manufac- tured, has an unquestionable right to distinguish the goods that he manufac- tures or sells by a peculi:n' mark or de- vice, in order that they may be known as liis in the n arket, and that he may secure the profits that their superior repute may be the means of g.aining. Ilis trade-mark is an assurance to the public of the qu.ality of his goods, and a pledge of bis own integrity in their manufacture and sale. Aitionki'iietir, '2 Sand. S. ('., (to;,.!, DiKit, .1 ; N. Y., IMtO. I'J. An acipii.'scmce of a rn;un Tie. turcr in thct use or imitation ofhls iia,],.. m:irk may be inferred from his kiiowl- c<|ge and silence ; but such consent, wiiellicr ex]>ressi'd or implied, wlicn gnituitous, may b(> witlnlrawn: it Is n,, more than a re\ocablo license. //;/,/. (iin. i;j. Where the plaint ill" had an Mj;ri'i'. nieiit with the proprietors of ;i |„,(,.[ — till' Irving House — to use the nninc of such proprietors, and the name dt Iheir hotel upon the co.aches and l);id(r,.s of their servants, and eiitere(l Jm,, bonds for the faithful jn'rlbrMiancc df their duties in carrying passengers nnd baggage to and from the stcMiiihoats. itc, itc, //eld, that the plaiiiiilVIiail an exclusive right, as ag.ainst third jur- sons, in the use of the name of siicli hotel on his coaches and badges for such purpose, .and th:it he was entitled (o an injunction to restrain the use, by dtliors, of the words "Irving House," or"lr. ving Hotel," to induce travellers to ho- iievo they were the serv;nits of sncli hotel, t^tone v. Curhin, n I^fo. LawIJci)., ;Ui()-30'2.— Cami'UKM,, J. ; X. Y., 18.10. 14. The inventor of a iiiedicini", though he can have no exclusive rijrlil to make and vend the same unless he obtain a patent therefor, is entitled to his trade-mark in the name of sucli medicine, and the law will recognize and |>rotect this right. Davis v. Jun dal(, 2 11. I., 569.— GuEKXK, Ch. J., K. I., 185;!. 15. A party will be protected in the use of a name which he li.as ai)i)r()pn- ated and rendered valuable, wlietluT such name is upon articles of personal property which he may manufacture, or <¥i... *!< TKADKMAlMvS, IJ. Ohi» WHO HAY ACgVIIlK FHUi'KlirY IN. be protected in llic h lie has apiJvnpri- valufible, wlietlicr artii-lcs of personal nay manullicturc, or ipplieil to a hotel where he lias hiiilt up ji l»iiJ*iiiess. Itomiird v. //i ttrii/iuti, '<) Suii.l. S. C, 72V. — Ca.mi'iiici.i., .1. ; N. V., IB.')!. 10. Where the proprietor of n hotel opt'iii'tl it aH the " Irviiit; House," ainl it liecaiin' t^eiienill \ known also hh tlie "irviiii; Hotel," and was y bitdi niinies intliseriuiinately, //tlhl., 72(1, 728. 17. 'riie proprietor of a hotel — the Itovere House~a!j;reed with the plain- tillto keep eoaeheH at a certain railroad (U'pot, to convey jtassen^ers to such house, and aut'liori/ed hiiu to p"it on hi.s coaches and on the caps of his drivi-rs llio words " Hevere House." A simi- lar agreement had existed between the wid proprietor of the Revere House and tlie defendants, but had been ter- mhiated. The defendants, howi'ver, continued to use the sanu) words on ihuircoaclies and drivers' caps, and held thi'insclves out as co..necte/ii/, 12 How. Tr., 78. — Ci-kkkk, J.; N. Y., IH.'iO. 21. Where a jierson organized a band of performers of negro minstrelsy, ;md nametl them, after himself, "C.'hristy's Minstrels," J/d(f,i\\nl he was entitled to the I'xclusive use of such name, and th.at he would be protected in it. 7/n'iA, 7S, 79. 22. The owner of goods, which ho exposes to s.'ile in market in his own right, is entitled to the exclusive use of any trade-mark devised and applied by him to the goods to distinguish them, as being of a particular manuthe- ture or ([ualify, although he is not him- self the manufacturer, aiwl although the name of the real manufacturer is used as a part of the trade-mark. M'ltlfon V. Crawtij/, ;J Llalcht',, 1 lo. — JSktis, J. ; N. Y., 1856. 2:3. The assigi\eo of the whole right in such trade-mark, and of the i)roperty in the goods to which it is attached, is entitled to the enjoyment of the exclu- sive right thereto, and nuiy nuiintain an action in his own name for any wrongful use by others of such trade- mark, to the like extent as the origina- tor thereof. I/>id., 448. 24. A person cannot accpare a right in a trudeuark, iu which he will be '*^hr ■ t ^Lfit' '■■*' ■«i^ .'• ■■■" ("..itC ■ ,ilHBl MO TllAbt MARKS, K WHO MAT AOWUIIU PRUPKMTT IN. proti'ctud, wlioii Huch name was in- UmkU'iI lo «lt'\ IJurb. ; N. Y., 1H57. :om to bo iiiiplic \ hIiouUI not ihum. )W any im]ti»»ition J ialso ninl IVauilu- )olrt, dovici's, and for the Biilf <)fi«pu- :ic,U'rt. //;/'^ TIIANSLATIOX. 001 COfTRIOlIT IM. mark bo ko oncn UHed, and ho Ioii^ cm- iiloyed, exclusively ainl iinintcrni|)te(lly, jiH to cr«'ate ft prcsiiiii|iti()n that every h()dy would know and ackiiow leil^o it sm a distinctive bad^e of owiuT.ship, nnd that tho UHO of it by olIieiH must have ](('t'U iiiteiiile:m powder, called "Meen Fun," which was represented as made in Lon- don, and "patronized by Her Majesty, the Queen," when, in fact, it was made in New York, and the defendant manu- factured a like article, representing it as "patronized by Iler Majesty, the Em- press," IMd, that the court would not grant an injunction ; not out of any re- gard for the defendant, but not to assist m deceiving the public. Il/id., 671. 40. The ncgh'i't of a parly to carry nn his biisini'ss, under its well-known name, for a iiiimltcr of years, do«>H not prcvnit him from resiiming the same or eiititio another to use tli«> name of his business, /fV op WIM. BE KB- HTUAINKl). See Injunction, C. TUANSLATION. 1. One person may have a right to a copyriglit in a translation upon which he luis bestowed time and labor; but another lias an eCj'.'.'d right to translate the original work, and publish his trans- lation. Emerson v. Uarlrn, 3 Story, 780. — Stouy, J. ; IMass., 1845. 2. A vopi/ of a book must be a tran- script of the liDujiinye in which the con- cei)tions of the author are clothed. Tho same conceptions, clothed in another language, cannot constitute the same composition ; nor can it be ctilled a tran- script, or " co/)y," of the same " book.^'' Stowe V. Thoiitus, 2 Amer. Law Keg., 220. — GuiEK, J.; Pa., 1853. 3. Though the point was not directly in issue in the great case of 3filler v. Taylor, 4 Burr,, 2305, yet the inference that a translation is not an uifringement s._^iW— •)'< •' K,,,- Hull '''hi - »«. "■'■♦■■■ '^:^.fn' ;sf,^;,|j 'Oru ttOil UNITKI) STATKS. moiin AND uAMLiTiii or Ai TO rimm. of n copyrifjht In n ln|;intl rcMiilt, iiinl Htiil«'<| \>y llio jiit|j;«'M llii'in'««'lvi'K iix u iicc'CHHury ••orollary tVoin I In' |irliiri|ilt' (it* lllW tllfll (il'dlluil li)' tItO CtMII't. Iftid., 230. 4, Tlio vnno of ^fill,r v. Tnjlor, i Dun., Hi'ttli'il the (|iii'Mtiiiii tiH to \\w iiii- liin- oftlii' |irrty >\ liich an aullior Iimn ill liiH wiM-kM; ntnl it in, that iitliT imlili- caliniiJiiH |iin|u'rty cnnslMtN in tlu) "riixlit <>l'«n|iy," which HitTuilifs "thi' xo\v rij.'ht of |ii'iiitiii;;, |>iii)li.>thiM<;, niul Hclliiiir hin litrrary (■ro|)(>rty in his original coiKi'ptioim tliat hi' alone ran use tlii'in in the ('i)ni|tositinn of a now work, or cloiho iht'iii in aiUn'ori'iil iIi'ohh hy traii:-i- hition. /ftuf., 'i.'JO. 5. A tnuihlation can, in no Just scnso, l»p ralli'fl a"co|)y"ofa i)ook. Jhhf., 'j;n. «i. Where an exclusive |>ri\ i!ci;e has l»et M securetl l)y statute in ii book which is |>iii)licly circulated, ii stranp-r who, in whole or in pait, rr|iroilitces it in the new ioriii of translation, orahridj^eineiit, or index, or table of contents, or analyt- ic.'il review, docs not infringe tho Htatii- torv privileLTo. 15ut either of these acts would violate tho right of the literary proprietor of .1 hook of which the circu- lation had been private only. Kccncs. ir/(f'(///<7/,0 Anier.Law lieg.,82. — Cad- AVAi.r.ADEU, J,; I'a., 1800. UNITED STATES. 1. In an action under § 10 of the act of 1V03, the court will not order the United States to be substituted .is plain- tiffs in tho action of scire facias, in ])laco of tlie petitioner. Wood v. Wil- liams, Otilpin, 520, 524. — Hopkinson, J.; Pa., 1S:J4. 2. Tho United State* nuii.ot l,,. brought in iim a parly to a litigation, n-- speeiing thevalidil) of any ri^dits,||,i|„. ed or derived under the I'nited Sliiun Inwa. //>/(/., A20. :t. On the eontrniy, theno rifr|itn ore considered jirivale rights, \ confni. versy as to them is strictly betwiin tin. p.irticH <'onceriie■, ()piii.,(iil|iin'M »'d., 1120.— IliTi.Kit, Atty. (bwi. ; 1m;i7. ft. S. being an inventor of an improve- ment in (b'agoon and pack saddles, iiiailo jipplication for a patent therefor huforu May, 1H47. In November, 1847, lid'oii, such ap|»licalion was acted on, (J. inaile Jipplication for a patent for tlu! same in- vention; but notice of interforence wag not given. In Decmber, 1h47, tlie Secretary of State a(blressed the Vum missioner <»f Patents, that an early issue of a patent to G. would facilitate ft8ii|) ply of saddles to the government; G.V application was taken up, and a pateiil issued December llth, 1847 — S.'s ;i|»- plication remaining not acted upon and postponed. Jfdd, that the wrong dono to S. was not committed by the UiiitcJ States, or by any of its officers, so as to render them pecuniarily respoiisil)lr therefor. 2'histlc v. United StaUs *- ^v>. VKUDU r IN I'ATKNT CASKS. out irrnrr ur. it CM nuuiDt \w I It liti^iktioii, r«<- ;iiiy ri^litH iluiiM' 10 l'iiit«'tl Sluii'n ;lit«. A coiitm- irtly ln'twi't'ii till' \o\\)i\\ the jiiililu' III iiituroHt ill it. \v:i(«oxtfinl('rH tlicir iii.'lit t ti'ViMH mill cDiidi- fo t'lijnyt'il tliiiM, j)att'iit till- \'\\\U'\ tt» usr till' iiivtii- prii'o, J/ilil, tli:it , tlic Uiiiti'tl Sliiti's ) (ISO ill" invriilion •iiiH lit'lorc aiiivnl ('xrt'|>tion ill ilH t;i- V(«(', ()i)iii.,vc- |)!ifkH;ul:"'"' li'ut thorcl'Dr lict'on; liMulu-r, lH47,l>i'l'"io !icti'«l on, (1. iii;iilt' Iciil lor tlu'SiUiK'in- of iiitcrii-ronco w:\g r ■iuIkt, 1h4", tlu' (IdrosHcA tint (\>m L tliiit an curly issue |)iil(l tarilitatt'iVHUii <4ovornnicnt ; G. i* m up, ami a lialont lltli, 1H47-S.'s 111- not ac'tcil upon m\ liatthe wroiijidoiu' [ittca by the United itsotlicers, Boasto miarily responsibk V. United Slates Pevoi'ciiux'it Ut'p., lUO. — SuAUituiKhi, J.; (;t. CluilllN, IHAU. (J. TIhtu in iiolliiii){ to OHtop tlu» fjov- crniiH'iit of tlu< I'liilctl.StiiloH from wliow- |ti>( !i palt'iit, wliiuli il ti.-kH ^ninti'il, to hiivo Ih'ch II nullity ai> initio, owiii^ to tlit< tioii-t'xiHt(>iico «if tilt) coiulitioii pro- ct'ilciit uf iiov«'!ty of til** invention. KIni/ V. Unitf.tl StiitfH, 10 Mo. l.iiw Ucp., / of any thing, hut the fact that it was rendered, unless a judgiiieiit Inubcen duly rendered there- on; qiii'ry. Allen v. Jllunf, 3 Story, 74»J. — Stouv, J.; Mass., 1H45. 0. A former verdict of dismissal be- tween tlie same parties, on an issue out of eliancery, on a bill asking for an in- junction, and upon an original .>pecilica- tioii, is not admissible in evidence in a suit at law for damages for violation of tlie patent, with corrected specilications, and in no case is such a verdict a bar tO the second action, unless judgment was reiiilered on such verdict against the plaintiif, or such verdict of dismissal was on the merits. Ibid., 132-1 :J4. 7. A verdict in a patent case, and sus- taining a patent, can in no case be evi- (lenco at law or in equity, in another action brought by a witness called by the plaintiff ou the trial in the former action, and who was interested in the same [latent, for the purpose of estab- lishing his title to the patent, as it is a proceeding inter alios. Huck v Her' mance, 1 Blatchf., 324. — Nelson, J.j N. Y., 1848. ■-i»' *#", ■(, 'V<)|!P«'>.., til '■Plllii li^l :lH7 9H WAUUANTV. iM ouimuoTi umummn fhiwn. R. Hut ■uoh vt*rtiO(t of till) valitlity ni' llu< |iult foinpftuiit, niMi'H ill whifh tho itppli- ctUioii iH to iIm< '•omul iliHcri'tion of lliu court. //>!(/., ;t'2 I, M-'S. 0. Wlii'ri' u piitt'titvo aixl hii« iiNNij^nitu brought n unit in otpiity in tliu Circuit (,'oiirt in LouiNiiuiu, iiiwlcr Hoi'lioii 1«) of till' a<*t of iH.'tO, ti|{ttiiiHt n Junior piit- enti'o, to ilfclurif nucli junior puti-nt voM, on tlic ground of itn intorftTuiioi' with tho phiintifTit piitt'iit ; aiiil ut^tTward thtt pain*' plaiiititrH hroii^ht an iiction at law ill aiiotlicr circMiit, for un infriii^ciiiciit of their patent, aijiiiiiHt n party wlio wan noi n party to tht) Niiit in liouisiatia, hut M'lio iiail ohtainoil an iiiti>n>st in tht junior patent, Hou;;hl to hi« mit aside liy that Hiiit, after the eoiiuiuiiieeiiieiit of that Huit and heforo tho jiidj^nient ron- derod tlierein ; J/clil, that tlie partie to Biich Huit at law were witliin the pro- viso of naid g 1*1, and that tiieir ri^litii would hit hound hy a deeision in the Biiit in Louisiana, declaring that siieh patentH interfered, or that either of them was valid or iiivaliil. 7^i/kr v. J/i/de, 2 lllatchf., 300, 312.— Uki-'v J.j N. Y., 18S1. 10. In an actior Tk- Jic infrin;^ompnt of a patent, if tho jUry adopt, as the mcasurn of dainaj:fe8, the price of the patent fee, proved in the case, such ver- dict will operate to vest tho title of the patent to tho extent of its use hy tho defendant complained of, throuf^hout its term. Sickles v. Borden, 3 Blatchf., 645. — Nklbow, J. ; N. Y., 1856. W, Mill. \ NTT. 1. A oonvpynnco or lieenno " to huilj and UHt* n patent niaehino," di'Merihinif U*'ftnd mu'h »«• I have n patent-riylit for," dovH not aniotiiit to n covenant uii the part of the vender that lie liml q valid pateiil-ri^ht. linti v. I'nitt \ Conn., 3 43, 34tJ.~Swin, CI,. J.j Ct., INIA. a. If n party nell nn Intercut in a pat- (>nt-ri){lit, making represetitatioii>< t],n\, are «'iii ot' tht Hale, and avoid payment — the preHiiniii- tioM «f law hein;; that the writiiijj con. tiiiii-i the whole contract. Win Onlraml v. Ii,i(f, 1 Wend., 432.— Savaue, Cli. J.; N. v., 1H'J«. 3. There is no implied warranty in the Hale of a palent-rij,'lit. The venilor, Hclliii;,' in p»od faith, is not respoiisildo for the j^oodnesH of hiH tilh' heyond tho extent of his covenants. J/inU v. 7\co- mei/, 1 Dev. A; Hat. Eq., 817, 318.— Daniki., .T.; N. C., I83«). 4. In sales of personal property, tlioro is an implied warranty that tlu; vendor has title to the property, and tlio name implications arise as to sales of patent* rij^hts. Durst v. Jirorkway, 1 1 Ohio, 471.— HiRciiAUD, J. ; Ohio, 1H42. 5. Where jiotcs were jfiven for tho purchaso of a patent which proved to be void, J/vld, that an injunction would bo allowed against the collection of such notes outstanding, and in the liniuls rv. •ciii»«» " to ^uil'l A |tut«'ii!-ri;ilit > n oovi'ititnl oil tlitit l)i> liml » tit V. Pr,itt, I n, CI.. J.; a, iittTcHt ill n |mt* I'Ht'iitationN tliikt irnkiily lliat tliu hut lilt' titli> iit )ill of Kuli) or aH< itiN no wonU of .'T rmiiiot j^o 1)0- tml |in»vt< n'priv iH iiiimIc |>ri-\ii)iii ll^siylilllfllf, illlil ^'nlcnition of tlid it — th« prcHiiiiijt- the writini^ coii- t. Van Onlrtinil 2. — Savage, CIi. i»'r/iW(iy, 1 1 Ohio, )luo, 1H42. ro given for tho whieh proved to injuiietiou would lie collection of L and in the hamU wnrr of kruou tn ivxtrnt casks. «M W>BN UM, AMD AIXDWAMCB Of. of ilia voncloni of tha patent. IbtJ., 4TI. 0. If ti Mil of "itlo uf n patent contiiUiM no wtirriuity, but a iilm|>l<* tniiiiifir of tiilo, tl>c vitndon cannot N«*t up ii pa- rol wiirr»nty, for It u to bo preNuiuoil that tlio writing contaiiiit tlii« eiitiri> eontrnot. JollljffVv. (,'nUin»,'2 Mo., ;ni. -St:«irr, J. ; Mo., iMftft. 7. Wlioro A wm runty im not ineludod in tlio writtiMi rontnict, it I'luinot l>u proved by piirol uvidonct*, iinleNS it in aUo iillef{«Ml Ihnt It wiih fiilMo or fruiidit- lent, and tbiit tliereliy tho vtiidiu^ whh (liN-eived, iind then parol proof in only cfideneo of nueh ropreMeiitiition. M'"- Clni'if V. Jiffrieii, H Ind., 8.1. — Davison, J,; Ind., I «.')(». H. An ai«Hi}{iinient contained a wurr.'in- ty that the invention waH original, and that no other invention had been pat- rnlod in tho United States on the Kunie iiriiK'iplc. In an acti/; v. Silahy, 1 lllatchf., 544.— Nklsox, J.; N. Y., 1850. 0. A judge of this court sitting at chambers is a court in the proper and usual sense of the term, and has the ])ower to allow a writ of error, under § 17 of the act of 1830, in cases where the judgment is under $2,000, and where the court shall deem buch writ reasonable. Ibid., 544. 7. There might be some reason for holding that the judge, when allowing such writ, must be if