Brandy Penington asked 5 days ago
The specification of the Cook patent describes a buckle with a link slot lower through considered one of its end-bars, in order that the end of the band could also be slipped by sidewise as a substitute of being pushed by endwise. The defendants buy the buckles and severed hoops on the cotton-mills, as scrap-iron, the hoops, when bought, being in bundles, bent, and being items of unequal lengths, some minimize at one distance from the buckle and a few at another. They so mixed it when they combined it with a band made of the pieces of the old band in the way in which described. In using the tie one end of the band is attached to 1 finish of the buckle by a loop in that finish of the band, and then the band is passed across the bale, and its free finish is slipped, by a loop made in it, by a slit in the buckle, around the opposite end of the buckle while the bale is below pressure. As a tie the defendants reconstructed it, although they used the previous buckle without repairing that. Ct. Rep. 537. There, as right here, the lapse of time, and laches based mostly upon it, have been thought of immaterial, as a result of the reissued patent was for a distinct invention from that described in the original.
Ct. Rep. 1137, in these words: ‘It follows from this that if, on the date of the difficulty of the unique patent, the patentee had been conscious of the character and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent when issued, and an examination of its phrases, made with that reasonable diploma of care which is habitual to and expected of males within the administration of their very own pursuits in the strange affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed fully to cowl the world of his invention. We’re due to this fact of opinion that the circuit court docket was clearly in the right in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the ground that the right to use for it had been misplaced by the laches of the patentee and his assignee. The outline needed to be modified within the reissue, to warrant the brand new claims in the reissue. The defendants contend that they do not mix the band with the buckle, and do not infringe the third declare of the Cook patent, or the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, or the claim of the McComb patent, because they don’t bale cotton with the tie.
We are due to this fact of opinion that the defendants have infringed the third declare of the Cook patent, the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, and the claim of the McComb patent. The Cook patent expired March 2, 1879; the Brodie patent, March 22, 1880; and the McComb patent, January 29, 1882. The plaintiffs are the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) a British company; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the mentioned James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, every in his personal behalf and as a copartner in a agency referred to as the American Cotton-tie Company. The suit was introduced for the infringement of three a number of letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an ‘improvement in metallic ties for cotton-bales,’ and prolonged for seven years from March 2, 1872; reissued letters patent No. 5,333, granted to James J. McComb, as assignee of George Brodie, March 25, 1873, for an ‘enchancment in cotton-bale ties,’ (the original patent having been granted to Brodie as inventor March 22, 1859, and reissued to him April 27, 1869, and prolonged for seven years from March 22, 1873;) and No. 31,252, granted to J. J. McComb, January 29, 1861, for an ‘enchancment in iron ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from January 29, 1875. They’re severally identified because the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents.
There is nothing whatever in the drawings to indicate that the patentee claimed to be the inventor of that half, separate from the mix, as a distinct novelty, helpful by itself, or in every other mixture; neithe is it so described in the specification. All that may be mentioned in respect to the drawings is that they present the pitman-spring system as a part of the bolt supposed to be covered by the patent, and described as a combination of which that device kinds a part. This is an attraction from a decree dismissing a bill in fairness for the infringement of letters patent granted to the plaintiff January 22, 1884, for ‘enhancements in lead-holders for pencils,’ which (omitting the drawings and the reason of them) absolutely reveals the invention claimed, and the type of lead-holders or lead-tubes previously in use, and known to the patentee, as follows: ‘The thing of my present invention is to carry the lead or crayon in pencils from slipping back inside the tube when presesed upon by the tube when pressed upon by the lead. This is an enchantment by the plaintiffs in a swimsuit in equity from a decree dismissing the invoice of complaint.
Brandy Penington answered 5 days ago
The specification of the Cook patent describes a buckle with a link slot lower through considered one of its end-bars, in order that the end of the band could also be slipped by sidewise as a substitute of being pushed by endwise. The defendants buy the buckles and severed hoops on the cotton-mills, as scrap-iron, the hoops, when bought, being in bundles, bent, and being items of unequal lengths, some minimize at one distance from the buckle and a few at another. They so mixed it when they combined it with a band made of the pieces of the old band in the way in which described. In using the tie one end of the band is attached to 1 finish of the buckle by a loop in that finish of the band, and then the band is passed across the bale, and its free finish is slipped, by a loop made in it, by a slit in the buckle, around the opposite end of the buckle while the bale is below pressure. As a tie the defendants reconstructed it, although they used the previous buckle without repairing that. Ct. Rep. 537. There, as right here, the lapse of time, and laches based mostly upon it, have been thought of immaterial, as a result of the reissued patent was for a distinct invention from that described in the original.
Ct. Rep. 1137, in these words: ‘It follows from this that if, on the date of the difficulty of the unique patent, the patentee had been conscious of the character and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent when issued, and an examination of its phrases, made with that reasonable diploma of care which is habitual to and expected of males within the administration of their very own pursuits in the strange affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed fully to cowl the world of his invention. We’re due to this fact of opinion that the circuit court docket was clearly in the right in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the ground that the right to use for it had been misplaced by the laches of the patentee and his assignee. The outline needed to be modified within the reissue, to warrant the brand new claims in the reissue. The defendants contend that they do not mix the band with the buckle, and do not infringe the third declare of the Cook patent, or the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, or the claim of the McComb patent, because they don’t bale cotton with the tie.
We are due to this fact of opinion that the defendants have infringed the third declare of the Cook patent, the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, and the claim of the McComb patent. The Cook patent expired March 2, 1879; the Brodie patent, March 22, 1880; and the McComb patent, January 29, 1882. The plaintiffs are the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) a British company; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the mentioned James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, every in his personal behalf and as a copartner in a agency referred to as the American Cotton-tie Company. The suit was introduced for the infringement of three a number of letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an ‘improvement in metallic ties for cotton-bales,’ and prolonged for seven years from March 2, 1872; reissued letters patent No. 5,333, granted to James J. McComb, as assignee of George Brodie, March 25, 1873, for an ‘enchancment in cotton-bale ties,’ (the original patent having been granted to Brodie as inventor March 22, 1859, and reissued to him April 27, 1869, and prolonged for seven years from March 22, 1873;) and No. 31,252, granted to J. J. McComb, January 29, 1861, for an ‘enchancment in iron ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from January 29, 1875. They’re severally identified because the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents.
There is nothing whatever in the drawings to indicate that the patentee claimed to be the inventor of that half, separate from the mix, as a distinct novelty, helpful by itself, or in every other mixture; neithe is it so described in the specification. All that may be mentioned in respect to the drawings is that they present the pitman-spring system as a part of the bolt supposed to be covered by the patent, and described as a combination of which that device kinds a part. This is an attraction from a decree dismissing a bill in fairness for the infringement of letters patent granted to the plaintiff January 22, 1884, for ‘enhancements in lead-holders for pencils,’ which (omitting the drawings and the reason of them) absolutely reveals the invention claimed, and the type of lead-holders or lead-tubes previously in use, and known to the patentee, as follows: ‘The thing of my present invention is to carry the lead or crayon in pencils from slipping back inside the tube when presesed upon by the tube when pressed upon by the lead. This is an enchantment by the plaintiffs in a swimsuit in equity from a decree dismissing the invoice of complaint.