Masseth v. Reiber

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Masseth v. Reiber

59 F. 614, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 15, 1894

DocketNo. 16, Nov. Term, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F. 614 (Masseth v. Reiber) 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.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. 614, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masseth-v-reiber-circtwdpa-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack