Louden Machinery Co. v. Montgomery

96 F. 232, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3233
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
DecidedJuly 19, 1899
DocketNo. 25,080
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 F. 232 (Louden Machinery Co. v. Montgomery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louden Machinery Co. v. Montgomery, 96 F. 232, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3233 (circtndil 1899).

Opinion

KOHLSAAT, District Judge.

The bill in this cause is filed to restrain the defendant from making, using, or selling, or causing to [233]*233be made, used, or sold, any machine or apparatus or farming implement or hay elevator containing or employing any one or part of any One of the inventions covered by letters patent numbered 271,276, 300,687, 317,109, 345,229, 393,940, 393,941, 397,124, 434,544, 444,546, 481,263, 485,511, 493,276, 539,524, and 610,865. The several patented devices are sold separately, and used in various relations. No one machine uses them all at one time. They consist of that class of articles which are applicable to numerous uses and combinations. Any of the patents might be infringed without infringing any of the others. The bill does not seek to restrain the infringement of any specific combination. Practically the court is asked to grant relief as to each of the patented articles separately. I find that the case as presented does not come within the rule which permits a plurality of patents to be sued upon in one action, where the inventions covered by those patents are embodied in one infringing process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The bill is multifarious, and the demurrer is sustained.

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

Related

Robinson v. Chicago Rys. Co.
174 F. 40 (Seventh Circuit, 1909)
Kaiser v. Bortel
162 F. 902 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1908)
United States Mineral Wool Co. v. Manville Covering Co.
101 F. 145 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. 232, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louden-machinery-co-v-montgomery-circtndil-1899.