Black v. Thorne

3 F. Cas. 517, 10 Blatchf. 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550, 1872 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided June 19, 1872·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BLATCHFOBD, District Judge.

This suit is brought on two patents. The first is a reissued patent, granted to Moses Thompson, March 31st, 1S57, for an “improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel,” the original patent having been granted to him, as inventor, April 10th, 1855, and reissued to him October 7th, 1856. The application for the original patent was filed November 14th, 1853, the specification having been sworn to November 9th, 1853; and a caveat, describing substantially the invention patented, was filed August 12th, 1853. This patent was extended April 8th, 1869, for seven years from April 10th, 1869, by the commissioner of patents.

The second patent is one granted to the same Moses Thompson, December 15th, 1857, for an “improvement in bagasse furnaces.” The application for this patent was . filed May 13th, 1857, a previous application filed on the same model, in February, 1S57, having been rejected. On an interference declared between the application of Thompson and a patent granted to A. Hager and S. Allyn, for an “improved bagasse furnace,” May 6th, 1856, priority of invention was decided in favor of Thompson, November 30th, 1S57. This interference related to what is the second claim in the patent granted to Thompson, December 15th, 1S57. This patent was, on the 14th of December, 1871, extended for seven years from the 15th of December, 1871, by the commissioner of patents.

The contest between the parties to this suit has been very severe. The suit was brought after the extension of the 1855 pat[519] ent, and before tbe extension of tbe 1857 patent. Tbe extension of tbe 1857 patent was strenuously opposed by tbe same parties wbo baye conducted tbe defence of tbis suit, and on substantially tbe same'evidence, on tbe question of tbe novelty of tbe inventions covered by that patent, wbicb is adduced on tbe same question in this suit It appears, from a paper in evidence, that seventeen different persons and firms, including tbe defendants, representing thirty-eight tanneries, including tbe three tanneries involved in this suit, have joined together to resist the claim of tbe plaintiffs under tbe said patents, agreeing to share, pro rata, all legal expenses incurred in defending against said patents. Tbe defence of tbis suit has been conducted under that arrangement.

Tbe answer sets up, that the 1857 reissue of tbe 1855 patent was obtained by Thompson for tbe purpose of further including therein, and did include therein, more than Thompson originally contemplated, specified or showed to be his alleged invention, on tbe apphcation for bis original patent, and matter wbicb he had no right to include and claim therein, and that such reissue is not for tbe same invention as tbe original patent of 1855, but is for inventions and things substantially and materially different. It also sets up, that tbe first claim of such reissue is invalid, because it is indefinite and equivocal, and does not refer to tbe process specified and described in the language preceding said claim. It avers, that tire extension of the 1855 patent was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, and denies any infringement of either patent. It sets up want of novelty in regard to both patents, and specifies, in respect to each, prior knowledge by nineteen persons, and prior description in eight printed publications, fourteen English patents, and two United States patents. Twenty-six witnesses have been examined on the part of the defendants, and twenty-one on the part of the plaintiffs. Of these, two on each side are chemical experts, Benjamin Silliman and William H. Plumb for the plaintiffs, and Charles F. Chandler and Adolph Faber du Faur for the defendants. The printed case on the part of the plaintiffs covers over six hundred printed pages. That on the part of the defendants covers nearly one thousand printed pages. The direct examination of the plaintiffs’ experts occupied six days, and covers sixty-five printed pages, embracing seventy-six interrogatories. The cross-examination of those experts occupied twenty-five days, and covers two hundred and seventy-two printed pages, embracing six hundred and five interrogatories. The direct examination of the defendants’ expert Du Faur occupied six days, and covers fifty-six printed pages, embracing one hundred and fifteen interrogatories. The. cross-examination of the same expert occupied seven days, and covers sixty-seven printed pages, embracing three hundred and thirty-one interrogatories. The direct examination of the defendants’ expert Chandler covers fifteen printed pages, embracing thirty-two interrogatories. He was not cross-examined. These observations are made for the purpose of showing how thorough has been the investigation of the questions at issue.

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

Black v. Thorne, 3 F. Cas. 517, 10 Blatchf. 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550, 1872 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185 (circtsdny 1872).

3 F. Cas. 517 (Black v. Thorne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Black v. Thorne
3 F. Cas. 525 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1874)