Masseth v. Reiber

59 F. 614, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania·Decided January 15, 1894·No. No. 16, Nov. Term, 1892·Published

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This case is governed by that of Masseth v. Johnston, (No. 8, Nov. Term, 1892,) 59 Fed. 613, to the opinion in which we refer. One additional matter is set up in defense. It is alleged that respondent requested complainant to put in one of his packers, and that he arbitrarily refused to do so until respondent would direct the payment of a contested bill by a company of which he was superintendent. These facts, however, would not justify the respondent in using an infringing device. “The exclusive right to his discovery” is what the law confers on a patentee. Whether he exercises that right or not, by manufacturing his device, cannot affect his exclusive right under the patent. Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs, 39 Fed. 805: Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf'g Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 49 Fed. 930. We are of opinion the complainant is entitled to a decree.

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

Masseth v. Reiber, 59 F. 614, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191 (circtwdpa 1894).

59 F. 614 (Masseth v. Reiber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs
39 F. 803 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1889)
Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf'g Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
49 F. 930 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1892)
Masseth v. Johnston
59 F. 613 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1894)