Page v. Buckley

67 F. 142, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
DecidedJanuary 7, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 F. 142 (Page v. Buckley) 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
Page v. Buckley, 67 F. 142, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382 (circtndil 1895).

Opinion

GROSSCUP, District Judge.

There has been no adjudication of the validity of complainant’s patent outside of the finding of the patent office in an interference hearing, and nothing that amounts to public acquiescence. The decision of the patent office deter[143]*143mined that the complainant’s and defendant’s inventions were the same, and that complainant’s, in point of time, was prior; but its validity, in view of the state of the art, was not inquired into, much less determined. The issuance of a patent, in this circuit at least, is not sufficient prima facie evidence of the novelty of the invention as justifies an injunction.

Neither is defendant, by the fact of having presented a claim for a patent for the same invention, barred from denying novelty. The right against monopoly is a general right, in which defendant shares, until it is adjudicated in a real contest that the invention has not been anticipated and the patent is in other respects valid.

Injunction denied,

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

Related

Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Newton Rubber Works
73 F. 218 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F. 142, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-v-buckley-circtndil-1895.