§ 1. Rights of public. *The term "navigable waters of the United States" defined.-United States v. Banister Realty Co. (C. C.) 583. *The various acts of Congress relating to the obstruction of navigation are within its authority to enact so far as such navigation comes within the provisions of interstate commerce or within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.-United States v. Banister Realty Co. (C. C.) 583. NEW TRIAL. Necessity of motion for purpose of review, NOTES. NOTICE. *A preliminary injunction granted in a suit Promissory notes, see "Bills and Notes." by the United States for a permanent injunction to prevent the closing of the inlet connecting the Bay of Far Rockaway with the ocean, pending a determination of the question whether such bay is navigable water within the jurisdiction of the United States.-United States v. Banister Realty Co. (C. C.) 583. Section 15 of the act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152, c. 425 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3543]), which makes it unlawful to anchor or tie up any vessel in a navigable channel in such manner as to prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels, was not intended to prevent the aiding of a vessel grounded or in difficulty, even if it involves the temporary obstruction of a channel. The Waverley (D. Č.) 436. NAVIGATION. See "Navigable Waters," § 1. NAVY. See "Army and Navy." NEGLIGENCE. Causing death, see "Death," § 1. By particular classes of persons. Condition or use of particular species of property, works, machinery, or other instru mentalities. 2; Of breach of contract of shipment, see "Shipping," § 3. Of nonpayment or protest of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," § 1. To occupant of public land, see "Public Lands," § 1. OBJECTIONS. To discharge of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," 14. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT. Laws impairing, see "Constitutional Law," § 4. OBSTRUCTIONS. Of navigation, see "Navigable Waters," § 1. OFFICERS. Contempt of officer in removing property from Injunctions affecting, see "Injunction," § 1. Restraining election of directors of corpora- Particular classes of officers. See "Attorney General." Corporate officers, see "Corporations," §§ 2, 3. OPENING. See "Electricity"; "Railroads," & 2: "Wharves." Judgment, see "Judgment," § 1. 99 Tug, see "Towage." ORDERS. Contributory negligence. Of passenger on vessel, see "Shipping," § 4. Of person injured by electric wire, see "Electricity." Of person killed or injured by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See "Bills and Notes." Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and ORDINANCES. Municipal ordinances as impairing obligation of contract, see "Constitutional Law," § 4. Restraining enforcement of, see "Injunction," § 1. PAINTINGS. Copyright of, see "Copyrights," § 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus. PALACE CARS. See "Carriers," § 3. PARENT AND CHILD. Action by parent for wrongful death of child, see "Death," § 1. Implied promise to pay for services to parent, see "Work and Labor." PARTIES. Character ground of jurisdiction, see "Courts," § 2. Exemption from service of process, see "Process," § 1. Right of party sustaining special injury to enjoin violation of anti-trust law, see "Monopolies," § 1. In particular actions or proceedings. Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Domain," § 2. Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 1. To enforce trust, see "Trusts," § 2. To foreclose mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 2. To restrain enforcement of railroad rates, see "Carriers," § 1. To conveyances, contracts, or other transactions. Persons affected by estoppel, see "Estoppel," § 1. PARTNERSHIP. Bankruptcy of, see "Bankruptcy," § 7. Blake & Knowles Steam Pump Works v. Warren Steam Pump Co. (C. C.) 285. Where there is no invention, the extent of the sales and use of the patented article is immaterial to sustain the patent.-Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine (C. C.) 298. *In order that a single prior knowledge and use of an invention may be enough to negative novelty in a subsequent patent therefor, it must be something more than an accidental or casual use, and it must be shown that such use was so far appreciated at the time and adopted or followed as to create a well-understood, if not an established, practice capable at any time of being resorted to, and not something incidental and fugitive, which is hunted up and brought forward simply to defeat the patent.-Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co. (C. C.) 409. the defense of prior use to defeat the patent is *The temptation in patent cases to resort to always great, and parties are held in consequence to the most convincing and stringent proof, not only to the fact of such use, but to its character as well.-Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co. (C. C.) 409. While the substitution of one material for another is not as a rule patentable, there are exceptions to such rule, and under some circumstances the adaptation of certain materials either singly or in combination to the production of certain desired results may amount to invention.-Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co. (C. C.) 409. The Conroy patent, No. 735,949, for a machine for shaping the edges of glass articles, held not invalid for prior use because the machine was Mortgage of partnership property, see "Mort- in fact used for more than two years prior to gages," § 1. 1. The firm, its name, powers, and property. *Real estate not purchased with partnership funds does not become partnership property, though used for partnership purposes, unless there is some agreement that it shall be so considered.-Clark v. Lyster (C. C. A.) 513. PASSENGERS. See "Carriers," § 3; "Shipping," § 4. PATENTS. Appearance in suit for infringement, see "Appearance." Jurisdiction of United States court of suits relating to, see "Courts," § 2. Specific performance of contract to assign patent, see "Specific Performance," § 1. § 1. Patentability. the application and infringed. Conroy v. Penn Electrical & Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 421. The fact that there existed a mechanical requirement for a machine to do a certain thing for a long time which was first supplied by the machine of a patent is highly evidentiary of inventive application and genius.-Maunula v. Sunell (C. C.) 535. § 2. Applications and proceedings thereon. A bill in equity to establish the right to a patent held sufficient on demurrer.-Prindle v. Brown (C. C. A.) 531. An allegation in a bill that an invention was made before the date of an application for a patent stated therein covers the reduction of the invention to practice, and is sufficient to carry the date of invention back of the application.Prindle v. Brown (C. C. A.) 531. The broad scope of Rev. St. § 4915 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3392], authorizing a suit in equity to establish the right to a patent, was in no way limited or qualified by Act Feb. 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, P. 33911, providing for appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.-Prindle v. Brown (C. C. A.) 531. *Where a patented structure, although a combination of old elements, is new and capable of a use which is new and of special utility, and in such use constitutes an important advance in the art, it cannot be denied patentability because other uses are also claimed for it in which it is not any substantial advance on the prior art.*Point annotated. *Where the essence of an invention is the location, form, size, or any other characteristic of See syllabus. the means employed, the patentee must distinct- thing intended was manifest from the specificaly specify the peculiarities in which his inven- tion and drawings.-Maunula v. Sunello (C. C.) tion is to be found.-American Lava Co. v. 535. Steward (C. O. A.) 731; Same v. Kirschberger (C. C. A.) 740. *A mere change of form in one part of a pat ented combination in a hot air furnace, without *While it is competent, when the circumstan- change of function, held not to avoid infringeces permit it, for an inventor in describing a ment.-Kelsey Heating Co. v. James Spear machine or apparatus which he has devised to Stove & Heating Co. (C. C.) 976. make a claim for a process which his patented device is capable of carrying out, to entitle him *The use in a claim of a patent of letters of to do so the process must be one capable of be- reference to the drawings does not necessarily ing carried out by other means; otherwise the limit the inventor to the exact form or configclaim is merely for a function of the machine. - uration of parts as thus portrayed and describAmerican Lava Co. v. Steward (C. C. A.) 731 ; ed.-Kelsey Heating Co. v. James Spear Stove Same v. Kirschberger (C. C. A.) 740. & Heating Co. (C. C.) 976. *An amendment to an application for a patent $ 5. Infringement. made to introduce a new theory of the inven- *A preliminary injunction to restrain contion, and which contains new claims covering tributory infringement of patents as limited by a process based on such theory, neither of its terms held properly granted.-Æolian Co. v. which were mentioned in the original applica- Harry H. Juelg Co. (č. °C. A.) 119. tion, if permissible as within the invention, should be verified by the oath of the inventor:- ment of the Sachs patent, No. 660,341, for an *A preliminary injunction against infringeAmerican Lava Co. v. Steward (C. C. A.) 731; electrical safety fuse, denied, on the ground Same v. Kirschberger (C. C. A.) 740. that upon the showing made infringement by In a suit under Rev. St. § 4915 [U. S. Comp. defendant was doubtful.-Johns-Pratt Co. v. St. 1901, p. 3392], to compel the issuance of a Sachs Co. (C. C.) 129. patent to complainant for an invention for *A motion for a preliminary injunction against which one was granted to the defendant, evidence is admissible to show that defendant's infringement of a patent denied, where the patpatent is void for anticipation, although no such ent was new and unadjudicated, and not a pioissue is made by the pleadings, and although neer, and infringement was denied and in doubt such evidence may defeat the action.-Richards on the showing made.-Sharp v. Bellinger (C. ) . v. Meissner (C. C.) 135. Quære, whether a defendant sued for infringe§ 3. Term. ment of a patent, who asserts the validity of a The claim that a British patent covering an junior patent, which is clearly a copy of cominvention also patented in the United States plainant's, is not estopped to deny the validity was taken out by an intermeddler and was un- of the latter.-Steel Protected Concrete Co. v. authorized, and therefore that its expiration did Central Improvement & Contracting Co. (C. C.) not affect the term of the American patent, can- 279. not be sustained where the American patentees The conduct of defendants in a suit for inland and did not repudiate the one in fact 06- fringement held to have been such as to justify land and did not repudiate the one in fact, ob- the court in imposing triple damages under Rev. Eng tained until after its expiration.-- United Shoe St. § 4921 [U. s. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3395]. Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co. Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire (C. O. A.) 842. Electrical Instrument Co. (C. C.) 301. Article 4 bis, inserted in the international convention for the protection of industrial proper- patent created by a decision of the Circuit The presumption in favor of the validity of a ty of March 20, 1883, þy the additional conven; Court of Appeals sustaining it cannot be over , tion or act of December 14, 1900, proclaimed come on a motion for a preliminary injunction by the President August 25, 1902 (32 Stat. 1936, in a subsequent case by ex parte affidavits re1939), as controlled and construed by Act March 3, 1903, c. 1019, 32 Stat. 1225 YU. S.lating to matters occurring several years preComp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 663], "to effectuate national Record Co. (C. C.) 427. viously.-American Graphophone Co. v. Interthe provisions” of such additional act of convention, did not have the effect of changing The mere making of duplicate copies of the term of an existing United States patent as fully finished, commercial, foreign-made records fixed by statute at the time of its issuance; for talking machines does not constitute inand such a patent granted prior to January fringement of the Jones patent No. 688,739, 1, 1898, and which is limited by the provision for a process of producing sound records.-of Rev. St. § 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds & Catlin 3382], to the term of a prior foreign patent, is Co. (C. C.)) 427. not extended by such additional act.–United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machin- shown by ex parte affidavits only are not suf *Preparations or threats to infringe a patent ery Co. (C. C. A.) 842. ficient to warrant the granting of a preliminary § 4. & Catlin Co. (C. y. Co. Construction and operation of leta injunction.--American Graphophone ters patent. A claim of a patent held not invalid because *If a patented improvement is of great utility, of an erroneous description of a part where the and denotes a marked and signal advance in the *Point annotated. See syllabus. samfermathnesa me funstiandi neferbstantians the *The mere splitting up or multiplying of parts state of the art, although not entitled to be de- red the obligation to pay damages, and not from nominated a pioneer, the law accords to the the date when the license fee became payable. inventor a larger range of equivalents than it - Diamond Stone Sawing Mach. Co. of New does where the improvement is of lesser or York v. Brown (C. C.) 753. minor importance.-Maunula v. Sunell (C. C.) Evidence held to establish a license fee for the 535. use of a patented machine of so general a char*The inventor of a combination is himself en- acter as to render it a proper measure of damtitled to apply and adapt the equivalents of the ages for a subsequent infringement.- Diamond parts to his own use, and his patent covers any Stone Sawing Mach. Co. of New York v. Brown alterations which are formal and adapted to (C. C.) 753. perform parts described.-Maunula v. Sunell (C. c.) 535. of a patented structure, the functions remaining the same, does not avoid infringement.-Kelsey A bill for infringement of a patent against Heating Co. v. James Spear Stove & Heating two defendants held not demurrable as being too Co. (C. C.) 976. vague and uncertain in its allegations.Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Electrose Mfg. Where none of the devices relied on by deCo. (C. C.) 543. fendant is an anticipation to the patented com bination in suit, although the inventive advance A bill for infringement of a patent is not de- shown may not be large, the Patent Office havmurrable because material facts are alleged on ing approved the invention, it will not be set information and belief.-Thomson-Houston Elec- aside. -Kelsey Heating Co. v. James Spear tric Co. v. Electrose Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543. Stove & Heating Co. (C. C.) 976. A bill for infringement against a nonresident corporation and its president held to sufficiently essential features of complainant's device, even Where defendants have appropriated all the allege that they had a regular and established to the name under which it is sold, they cannot place of business within the district under Act. complain if the inventive originality which is March 3, 1897, c. 395, 29 Stat. 695 [U. S. Comp. claimed for it is held to sufficiently appear.St. 1901, p. 589]. - Thomson-Houston Electric Kelsey Heating Co. v. James Spear Stove & Co. v. Electrose Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543. Heating Co. (C. C.) 976. A bill for infringement against a corporation and an individual described as its president $ 6. Decisions on the validity, construcand general manager, which charges that de tion, and infringement of partic ular patents. fendants have and each of them has committed certain acts of infringement, sufficiently alleges The Stockheim patent, No. 378,379, for a a joint infringement, and is not demurrable for process of filtering beer, held not anticipated, multifariousness. — Thomson-Houston . Electric valid and infringed.--German-American Filter Co. v. Electrose Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543. Co. of New York v. Loew Filter & Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 124. A bill for infringement of a patent which alleges acts of infringement within six years need The French and Meyer patent, No. 412,704, not specifically allege that complainant has been for a sole-sewing machine, expired September diligent.-Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. 17, 1902, with the expiration of the term of Electrose Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543. the prior British patent, No. 13,366, of 1888, granted to the same patentees for substantial- . The fact that profits are recoverable in a suit ly the same invention. -United Shoe Machinery in equity for infringement of a patent under Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co. (C. C. A.) Rev. St. § 4921 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3395], 842. and not in an action at law, while not in itself any basis for equitable jurisdiction, is a reason The Wainwright patents, Nos. 428,432, why that jurisdiction should not be relinquished 614,587, and 727,233, for improvements in the when it may be upheld on other grounds.- construction of concrete curbing, are void for Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Electrose Mfg. lack of invention and anticipation as to the Co. (C. C.) 543. metal corner bar shown therein for protecting Where a number of suits for infringement be- Protected Concrete Co. v. Central Improvement the upper and outer corner of the curb.-Steel tween the same parties each based on a different & Contracting Co. (C. C.) 279. patent are related, the patents having to do with similar subject-matter, so that if joined The Gathright patent, No. 436,916, for a tabuall could be tried upon the same record, the lating attachment for typewriters, as previously court may properly retain jurisdiction in equity, construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, heid even though in some of them an adequate infringed on motion for a preliminary injuncremedy may exist at law because of the near tion.-Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Graves : expiration of the the patent.--Thomson-Houston Typewriter Co. (C. C.) 138. Electric Co. y. Electrose Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 543. The Jeffrey patents, Nos. 454,115, 558,956, *Damages for infringement of a patent can be 466,565, and 523,314, each for a wheel tire: considered as liquidated where an established and covering improvements in pneumatic tires.. license fee renders such damages easily deter- construed, and held not infringed.-Gormley &; minable but an infringer is liable for interest on Jeffery Tire Co. v. Pennsylvania Rubber Co.. such damages only from the date when he incur- (C. C.) 982. *Point annotated. See syllabus. 1 The Norton patent, No. 470,591, for a feed The Kelsey patent, No. 476,230, for a hot air The Hicks patent, No. 500,071, for a method The Morrow patent, No. 504,401, for an arma- The Whiting & Wheeler patent, No. 526,913, The Duncan patent, No. 550,823, for improve- The Cunningham patents, Nos. 553,185 and The Reist patent, No. 559,910, for an arma- The Nolan patent, No. 582,481, for fastening The Haataja patent, No. 587,308, for a net The Dolan patent, No. 589,342, for an acety- The Potter patent, No. 689,906, for a detonat- The Conroy patent, No. 723,139, for a method The Conroy patent, No. 731,667, for a machine chine for shaping the edges of glass articles, 753 134 134 138 121 121 134 123 cited 138 747 134 290 747 138 121 61,620. Nut locks, cited.. The Elliott patent, No. 641,092, for a rotary The Hendrickson and Clamer patent, No. 655,- 747 752 |
