Dawson v. Follen
This text of 7 F. Cas. 216 (Dawson v. Follen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(PETERS, District Judge, absent), informed the jury, ¿hat to entitle the plaintiff to recover, they must be satisfied that he was the original inventor, not only in relation to the United States, but to other parts of the world; in which respect, the act of congress differed from the law of England on this subject That even if there were no proof that the plaintiff was acquainted with the circumstance, that the discovery had before been made, still he could not recover, if in truth he was not the original inventor. Upon the evidence, the charge was strongly against the plaintiff. Verdict for defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 F. Cas. 216, 2 Wash. C. C. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-follen-circtdpa-1808.