Lippincott v. Kelly
This text of 15 F. Cas. 571 (Lippincott v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
were inclined to consider the disclaimer as unreasonably delayed under the ninth section of the act of 1S37, but left that question to the jury. They inclined also to the opinion that the disclaimer as required by the seventh section, should have not only disclaimed what was not claimed as new, but should also have distinctly set forth what part of the invention was still claimed, as it was -manifestly designed to act as a new specification.
Verdict for defendant.
[For other cases involving this patent, see notes to Bicknell v. Todd. Case No. 1 389, and Gibson v. Van Dressar, Id. 5,402.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 F. Cas. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippincott-v-kelly-circtwdpa-1844.