B. B. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Stewart

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

B. B. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Stewart

116 F. 927, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 11, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 F. 927 (B. B. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B. B. Hill Mfg. Co. v. Stewart, 116 F. 927, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There is no evidence to show any representations by defendants that the goods they sell are of plaintiff’s manufacture. They look like plaintiff’s goods because both makers modeled their goods on a form shown in an earlier and expired patent (No. 228,121). To that extent the bill should be dismissed.

The invention is a narrow one, but yet patentable. Extended discussion of this branch of the case would be profitless because of the measure of relief which the facts in proof indicate must be adopted. Defendants, before suit brought, made hand stamps which were manifestly infringements of the patent in suit. Since then they have made them without the “spring tension,” which is the principal feature of the patent; insisting that this later model is quite as good as the one shown in the patent. Complainant may therefore take a decree enjoining future manufacture or sales of hand stamps containing the spring tension of the patent, but excepting from its operation the later model.

It is not disputed that at one time (whether for a longer or a shorter period the evidence is conflicting) plaintiffs made and sold the patented article without marking it “patented,” and giving the day and year the patent was granted. There is no satisfactory proof that defendant was duly notified of infringement, and continued after such notice to infringe. Section 4900, Rev. St. U. S. Under these circumstances, nominal damages only can be recovered for infringement.

Inasmuch as neither party hás substantially prevailed, the decree will be without costs to either as against the other.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There is no evidence to show any representations by defendants that the goods they sell are of plaintiff’s manufacture. They look like plaintiff’s goods because both makers modeled their goods on a form shown in an earlier and expired patent (No. 228,121). To that extent the bill should be dismissed.

The invention is a narrow one, but yet patentable. Extended discussion of this branch of the case would be profitless because of the measure of relief which the facts in proof indicate must be adopted. Defendants, before suit brought, made hand stamps which were manifestly infringements of the patent in suit. Since then they have made them without the “spring tension,” which is the principal feature of the patent; insisting that this later model is quite as good as the one shown in the patent. Complainant may therefore take a decree enjoining future manufacture or sales of hand stamps containing the spring tension of the patent, but excepting from its operation the later model.

It is not disputed that at one time (whether for a longer or a shorter period the evidence is conflicting) plaintiffs made and sold the patented article without marking it “patented,” and giving the day and year the patent was granted. There is no satisfactory proof that defendant was duly notified of infringement, and continued after such notice to infringe. Section 4900, Rev. St. U. S. Under these circumstances, nominal damages only can be recovered for infringement.

Inasmuch as neither party hás substantially prevailed, the decree will be without costs to either as against the other.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. 927, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-b-hill-mfg-co-v-stewart-circtsdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack