Mandamus, Commissioner of Patents not to be compelled to reopen inter- ference by. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents__
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not controllable thereby. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents_
Does not lie where no legal injury is shown. a United States of America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents_---- May not control declaration of interference, nor will question of res adjudicata be reviewed on. * United States, ex rel. Inter- national Money Machine Company, v. Newton__-
Not to be issued to an administrative officer except for refusal to perform ministerial duties. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents-- Meaning of claims clear, consideration of prior art not necessary. * Creveling v. Jepson----
Modification of Commissioner's decision without rehearing, if right, not reversible error. * Creveling v. Jepson_.
Monopoly, right to preserve as trade-secret for profit and right to protect under patent laws inconsistent. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General
Rights cannot be extended by contract to impose restraint upon future sales. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Company and Columbia Graphophone Company.
Name of applicant, as signed an accepted name though also an abbre- viation, no affidavit as to full first name should be required. Ex parte Bowen
New use of old devices, concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tri- bunals and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Ed- ward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of Patents).
Oaths, no power vested in diplomatic or consular officers in charge of interests of United States to administer in enemy alien countries. 'Opinion of Solicitor of Department of Interior_-_-
Officers and enlisted men, under section 113, Penal Code, enlisted men may practice before Patent Office, but commissioned officers doing so may not receive compensation for services. Opinion Solicitor Depart- ment Interior___
Official act within constitutional jurisdiction, court has no power to undo by writ of mandamus. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents.
Opposition to registration properly sustained where the user of the mark might profit by the reputation of another. *The Thomas Manufactur- ing Company v. The Aeolian Company__
Particular patents, Adler and Sullivan, No. 991,187, "Spring cushions for seats and backs of automobiles," valid and not infringed. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler_.
Particular Patents-Continued.
Baldwin, Reissue No. 13,542, (original No. 821,580,) "Acetylene-gas- generating lamp," valid. ** Abercrombie & Fitch Company and Justrite Manufacturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons Company
Claim 4 construed, validity sustained, original invention not broadened. ** Abercrombie & Fitch Company and Justrite Manu- facturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons Company. Bayley, Design No. 49,593, "Electric-lighting fixture," void for lack of invention. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al.
Block, No. 1,061,353, "Arch-support," not infringed. Co. v. Block et al-----.
Same, No. 1,127,349, “Support for arch of foot," anticipated. “Won- der Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Claim limited by its language and not infringed. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.. Brooke, No. 723,983, "Apparatus for cutting and distributing molten materials," construed, valid, and infringed. d Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co____ Burchenal, No. 1,135,351, "Hydrogenation of oil," claims 1 and 2 unpatentable and not infringed. Procter & Gamble Company v. Berlin Mills Company--
Hornby, No. 1,079,245, perforated plate.
Limited---- Kuch, No. 1,090,992, “Mercury-vapor lamp," patentable improvement and infringed. General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co-
Co. et al v. Public Service Cup Co‒‒‒‒‒ Same, No. 1,081,508, certain claims valid and infringed, claim 16 valid, but not infringed. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Cup Co..
Macbeth, Reissue No. 13,766, (original No. 1,097,600,) process for
making glass. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co__ Phillips, No. 950,402, gearing device, void, being merely an aggrega- tion of old elements. ** Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E. E. Johnson Company---
Plym, No. 852,450, store-front construction, valid and infringed. troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co---
Same, No. 860,150, construction of glass plates, not infringed. troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co...
Ruud, No. 853,738, shows invention and has not been anticipated. d Ruud Mfg. Co. v. Long-Landreth-Schneider Co. et al--. Schade, No. 819,461, "Loose-leaf binder,” void for lack of invention. Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co-----.
Spengler, No. 1,074,907, valid and not anticipated by the earlier Clay patents. United States Metal Cap & Seal Co. v. American Key- less Kap Corporation et al----
Stenz, No. 1,047,849, limited and as limited not infringed. Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al-----
Patents reward of a tested contribution to the art, not of a pregnant sur- mise or a promising hypothesis. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation---
For improvement, invention considered with reference to prior patents as to advance, claims immaterial except to clear obscurity. d General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co---‒‒‒ Granted on an invention in controversy after the filing of an appli- cation for the same invention, but on an earlier application, may establish bar of prior invention. Ex parte Thomas-- Granting of presumes patentable invention. d Corona Chemical Co. v.
Latimer Chemical Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
Valid and infringed, unfair competition may be included in account- ing for damages and profits. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒
Patent law must consider means as well as product," means" suggesting meritorious human effort, reward of which is the object of the law. d Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co., et al__ Policy of to secure to the public benefit of inventions after expiration of fixed term. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ Patent Office tribunals, concurrent decisions upheld unless there is mani- fest error. *Rees v. White_____
Concurrent judgment not overturned except for manifest error. re Kohler Reversal of uniform decisions obtained only upon a very clear case of error. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, deceased, v. Johnson___.
Patentability, design must possess different configuration from other de- signs. Ex parte Kaupmann___.
Successful imitation of product not necessarily patentable novelty. d Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al----- Patented article, contract fixing price void, cannot be enforced by suit for infringement. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Grapho- phone and Columbia Graphophone Company__
Patentee not first in field, scope of invention limited by language of claim. d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al. Popular recognition and demand for article by those who use it matters to be considered in favor of invention. Globe Knitting Works v. Segal et al._____
Practice in the Patent Office, as stated in former decisions, defined. Ex parte Holst and Leers_
Preamble to claims, qualifying clause not to be ignored because it does not describe an element, but should be read on all following elements. d Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co‒‒‒‒ Preliminary statement, question of amendment as to whether device con- sidered first as model was, in fact, reduction to practice to be postponed to final hearing. Aberle v. Borchert v. Schmidt v. Gaisman____ Priority of invention, properly awarded.
* Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, deceased, v. Johnson____
Where one inventor did nothing with an invention until others en- tered the field, priority was properly awarded to the more diligent parties. * Dreckschmidt v. Shaefer and Holmes__. Publication by inventor of device on which he seeks patent more than two years prior to application precludes patent. Wagner v. Meccano Limited__
Question whether construction embodies issue, not raised before Patent Office, not before the court. *Luckett v. Straub_--
Redeclaration of interference not to be compelled by mandamus *Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents___
Reduction to practice, test should show that device will give desired result. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, de- ceased, v. Johnson
Reissue, application delayed for long period, excuse for such delay must be out of the ordinary. Ex parte Schneider__.
Intervening rights presumed where application is delayed for a long period. Ex parte Schneider__
With broader claims properly refused where there was a delay in making application of more than two years. Ex parte Schneider__ Renewal of application, date of filing relates back to date of filing of original application. *Murphy v. Thompson_-_ Res adjudicata, question of not reviewed on mandamus.
ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton__ Right to make claims. Gammeter v. Lister_.
Estopped by delay, former decision cited. *Kane v. Podlesak___ Rightful issue of patent, question not to be raised on appeal. * Lauten- schlager v. Glass__.
Sale of patented article at fixed price under contract not within monopoly of patent law and cannot be enforced as infringement. Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Company and Columbia Graphophone Company---
Scope of patent, where application for patent was filed prior to that for patent in suit it is prima facie part of prior art and its limitations of scope of patent in suit may be considered. d Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler_.
Second application, filed after expiration of time for second renewal of first application, cannot be considered a continuation of the first appli- cation. Barrett v. Hart_____
Specific claims, to be interpreted in the light of the general disclosure. * Burt v. Coats and Cameron. Coats & Cameron v. Burt____ Specifications, addressed to those skilled in the art. * Burt v. Coats and Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt___
Suits for infringement. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler___. Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co-----
Costs in each case disposed of on its own merits, in the discretion of the court. 'Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al. v. Public Serv- ice Cup Co‒‒‒‒‒
Date of filing application shown by officially printed copy accepted as correct in absence of objection. Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co-- On appeal from an interlocutory injunction appellate court will go no further than to ascertain if court below abused its discretion in granting. d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al__
Terminology. Anticipation and prior invention distinguished. Rule 75 construed and applied. Ex parte Thomas___ Trade-marks, act of February 20, 1905, applies to all registrations, in- cluding those under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v Mack_--- Act provides for registration of actual not fictitious marks.
Adoption and use of mark does not project rights of protection in advance of extension of trade, neither will it give territorial rights in localities where thereafter it may seem desirable to extend the trade. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_ Adverse decision in interference, cancelation proper. * Great Bear Spring Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company-- Appealing under provisions of trade-mark statutes is, in effect, assert- ing their validity. *Fulton Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company-
Applying to goods of different class of merchandise. * Chas. A. Schieren Company v. Whittemore Bros. Corporation and Sullivan_ Cancelation may follow as an incident to interference decision in a registration under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack__ Certain features, though disclaimed, should not be removed from the drawings. Ex parte L. C. Chase & Company-
Class of merchandise, ice-cream cones and dairy products not the same class of goods. * Borden's Condensed Milk Company v. Eagle Manufacturing Company---
Commissioner of Patents may refuse to grant monopoly in mark both descriptive and containing the common trade-name of similar arti- cles in a class of merchandise, confusion of the public being likely to result. * In re Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc_--- Construction of section 13, act 1895, trade-mark statutes. * Fulton Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company----
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |