Fraim v. Keen

25 F. 820, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2343
United States Circuit Court·Decided November 2, 1885·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Butler, J.

While the question of patentable invention, respecting complainant’s improved lock, may be open to debate and doubt, we do not feel justified in reversing the decision of the patent-office, by anything appearing in the case.

Nor do we think the evidence would justify a conclusion that Fraim was not the first inventor. While the direct evidence in favor of Shallass’ claim is not satisfactory, the inferences arising from his conduct are strongly against him. He not only stood by and saw Fraim assert his right to the patent, without objection, but directly after took out letters for a different improvement.

The infringement of the second claim is clearly proved; and the infringement of the third is virtually admitted.

The bill is sustained, and a decree must be entered accordingly, and for costs.

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

Fraim v. Keen, 25 F. 820, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2343 (uscirct 1885).

25 F. 820 (Fraim v. Keen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Caramel Co. v. Glen Rock Stamping Co.
201 F. 363 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1912)
Hale & Kilburn Mfg. Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Ry. Co.
129 F. 598 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1904)
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Stickney
123 F. 79 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)