Jensen v. Keasbey

U.S. Circuit Court

Jensen v. Keasbey

24 F. 144, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2044

DecidedApril 28, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. 144 (Jensen v. Keasbey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jensen v. Keasbey, 24 F. 144, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2044 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.

That the plaintiff’s patented product, “peptone-pop-sin,” is of great utility and patentable (if not anticipated) is undoubted. The alleged infringement is conclusively proved. ,The defenses — First, that for more than two years prior to the patentee’s application this article had been exposed to sale; and, second, that it had been described in certain publications, — are not sustained by the proofs. No such article is shown td have been so on sale, and no such process as employed by the plaintiff, or article manufactured by him, is shown to have been thus described. Pepsin had been manufactured and sold for many years, but no “peptone-pepsin,” such as this patent describes. The publications relied upon show nothing more than suggestions and speculations of scientific writers, who had never tested the practicability of their suggestions or demonstrated the truth or value of their speculations.

A decree will be entered accordingly.

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

Butler, J.

That the plaintiff’s patented product, “peptone-pop-sin,” is of great utility and patentable (if not anticipated) is undoubted. The alleged infringement is conclusively proved. ,The defenses — First, that for more than two years prior to the patentee’s application this article had been exposed to sale; and, second, that it had been described in certain publications, — are not sustained by the proofs. No such article is shown td have been so on sale, and no such process as employed by the plaintiff, or article manufactured by him, is shown to have been thus described. Pepsin had been manufactured and sold for many years, but no “peptone-pepsin,” such as this patent describes. The publications relied upon show nothing more than suggestions and speculations of scientific writers, who had never tested the practicability of their suggestions or demonstrated the truth or value of their speculations.

A decree will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. 144, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-keasbey-uscirct-1885.