the corporations, and the right to re-
cover and retain all damages for in-
fringement of the patent after such
day by others than the corporations,
and their licensees, agents or cus-
tomers; (3.) After the granting by
the corporations of any license to use
the patent, all claim for damages
thereafter accruing to R. is to cease;
(4.) All suits prosecuted by R. are to
be at the sole expense of the corpor-
ations; (5.) The corporations are not
to grant any license to use the patent
except to their general licensees :
Held, that the effect of the two in-
struments was to vest in D., as trustee
for the corporations, all R.'s interest
in the patent, and to vest in D., as
trustee for R., all interest in all claims
for past infringements of the patent
against others than the corporations,
and all interest in all claims for future
infringements of the patent against
others than the corporations and
their licensees, agents or customers.
Dibble v. Augur,
4. A bill to recover for infringements
committed before such assignment
and agreement were made, filed
against a defendant, not one of the
corporations, ought properly to be
brought in the name of D., as trustee
for R., joining R., as the owner of the
equitable interest.
id.
5. The addition, as plaintiffs, of D., as
trustee for the corporations, and of the
corporations themselves, is surplus-
age; but, where the objection to such
addition was not raised until the hear-
ing, and R. had, after the filing of the
bill, assigned to D., as trustee for the
corporations and for R., all claims for
past infringements of the patent, the
bill was allowed to stand.
1. Patents Generally. (1.)
2. Invention. (2 to 6.)
3. Application. (7. 8.)
4. Specification. (9.)
5. Abandonment. (10, 11.)
6. Assignment. (12 to 17.)
7. License. (18.)
9. Novelty. (19, 20.)
10. Infringement. (21 to 24.)
11. Injunction.
12. Patent for a Design. (25 to 29.)
13. Particular Patents.
(1.) Lawton and Bliss'. Hose-
Coupling. (30 to 35.)
(2.) Bliss' Hose-Coupling. (36,
37.)
(3.) Hoffman's-Paper-Collar. (38,
2. Although a combination of old de-
vices may be patentable when a new
and useful result is produced, no one
made by the patentee, he is, in re-
spect of the patent so granted, to be
regarded as having applied, by such
application, for a patent for every-
thing found in such model and draw-
ings, for which he could, at the time
of making such application, have ob-
tained a valid patent.
id.
9. Where, in a suit for the infringe-
ment of a patent for an improvement
in a lock, the defendant's lock con-
tained the entire mechanical arrange-
ment, in substance, which was found
in the description of the plaintiff's
patent, so far as the invention of the
patentee was concerned, with only
such variations as the skill of a me-
chanic would suggest: Held, that the
plaintiff's patent ought, if possible, to
be so construed as to make it valid
with reference to the defendant's lock.
Coffin v. Ogden,
See 7, 43, 46, 48, 50, 69, 70.
Where the model and drawings
filed with an application for a patent
fully represented the improvements
claimed in a patent subsequently
granted to the applicant, it was held,
on the facts in this case, that he had
not abandoned his application, and
that he was entitled, in respect to the
question whether such improvements
were in public use or on sale, with
his consent and allowance, for more
than two years prior to his applica-
tion for a patent therefor, to have the
date of the making of such applica-
tion regarded as the date of his ap-
plication for the patent so granted.
Singer v. Braunsdorf,
11. Forfeitures and abandonments are
not favored, and must be clearly
made out.
id.
12. Where patentee assigns all his
right, title and interest in his inven-
tion and patent within and through-
out a specified territory, this is such
a grant of exclusive right as war-
rants a suit in the name of the
Where a patent granted to W., as inventor, was infringed by a machine used by P., by virtue of a license under a patent granted to N., as inventor, and it was set up in defence that N. was the first inventor of what was covered by the patent to W., and it appeared that N. made his invention before the application by W. for his patent, but that W. had in successful operation a machine containing the invention at a date earlier than the date of the invention by N. of anything embodied in W.'s patent: Held, that W. was the first inventor. Nichols v. Pearce,
A patent is not invalidated by the
fact that the invention claimed in it was described, but not claimed, in a patent granted subsequently to the making of the application for the patent secondly issued, but before it was granted. Singer v. Braunsdorf, 521
See 44, 45, 49, 55, 60, 64 to 66, 68, 75, 79.
21. Where armor for a vessel was constructed by Q. under an order given for that purpose by the Secretary of the Navy of the United States, and was applied to a vessel built for the United States, and was paid for to Q. by the Secretary of the Navy: Held, that, although the armor may have been the same, in arrangement, as that covered by a patent, Q. was not liable, in a suit on the patent, for any value which the armor may have been to the United States. Heaton V. Quintard,
22. The patent being for the applica
tion or employment of the armor on
31. The claim of that patent is: "The
two thimbles C D, attached to the
ends of the hose A B, the thimble C
being provided with the shoulder b,
and ground seat or packing c, and
the thimble D provided with the
groove e, with inclined sides and
fitted within thimble C, the above
parts being used in connection with
the conical roller or rollers g, fitted
in the screw caps i, and the whole
arranged to operate as and for the
purpose set forth." To be within
this claim, there must not only be a
pin with a conical face at its inner
end, but the pin must have the
capacity of rotating as a roller.
32. The reissued letters patent granted
to William H. Bliss, December 21st,
1869, for an "improvement in hose-
couplings," on the surrender of the
original patent granted to William
H. Bliss and Robert B. Lawton, as
inventors, February 22d, 1859, are
valid. Bliss V. Gaylord Mfg.
The first claim of such reissued
patent claims the arrangement of
two thimbles, the inner one grooved
circumferentially, and with an in-
cline on the side of the groove,
against which a pin passing through
the outer thimble is forced, so that
the inward movement of the pin
crowds the end of the inner thimble
against the seat on the shoulder in
the outer thimble.
34. The second claim claims the con-
struction with an incline, of the side
44. Where a lock containing a reversi-
ble latch, embodying the inventions
covered by such claims, was, prior to
the making of the invention by the
patentee, made by E., and shown to
three lock-makers, who examined it
and understood its construction, and
it was not put upon a door or put
into use, or tested otherwise than by
the exhibition of it and its working
to the three lock-makers, but was a
complete working reversible latch:
Held, that it was a complete and per-
fected invention, and that such a
knowledge of it, as a completed inven-
tion, was given to the public, before
the patentee made his invention of
the same thing, as to deprive the
patentee of his right as first inventor.
|