Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman

23 F. 801, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedMarch 2, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. 801 (Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 23 F. 801, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996 (circtedmo 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

Reissued patent 6,080 of 1874, second claim of which is under consideration, has, as to that claim, expanded the original beyond legal limits. Therefore said reissued patent is void to the extent claimed, wherein the defendant is alleged to have infringed.

2. As to Kendall patent No. 174,684 there is no infringement.

3. As to Pattee patent of 1877, No. 187,899, said patent is void, there being no novelty of invention therein that is patentable.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Treat, J.

Reissued patent 6,080 of 1874, second claim of which is under consideration, has, as to that claim, expanded the original beyond legal limits. Therefore said reissued patent is void to the extent claimed, wherein the defendant is alleged to have infringed.

2. As to Kendall patent No. 174,684 there is no infringement.

3. As to Pattee patent of 1877, No. 187,899, said patent is void, there being no novelty of invention therein that is patentable.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. 801, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pattee-plow-co-v-kingman-circtedmo-1885.