Rawson & Morrison Mfg. Co. v. C. W. Hunt Co.

140 F. 716, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4825
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedOctober 30, 1905
DocketNo. 8631
StatusPublished

This text of 140 F. 716 (Rawson & Morrison Mfg. Co. v. C. W. Hunt Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rawson & Morrison Mfg. Co. v. C. W. Hunt Co., 140 F. 716, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4825 (circtsdny 1905).

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

In my opinion, it appears on the face of the complaint:

1. That not only was there no inadvertence, accident, or mistake in omitting, in the original patent, the claims which are made in the reissued patent, but it affirmatively appears that the application originally filed contained substantially all the claims contained in the reissue and not contained in the original patent, and that those claims, during the prosecution of the application in the Patent Office, were voluntarily withdrawn by the complainant’s solicitor.

2. That the new claims contained in the reissued patent were not inserted to correct any accident, inadvertence, or mistake in the first patent, but were simply new and broader claims inserted to meet the necessities of a particular contemplated suit.

3. That the period of two years and three months between the granting of the original’patent and the application for a reissue constituted, under the circumstances of the case, such laches as to render the reissue invalid.

My conclusion is that the demurrer should be sustained; and, as this-is the second demurrer, and the ground of the first.demurrer was that it did not sufficiently appear on the face of the complaint that the reissue was valid, and the complaint was amended for the purpose of specifically meeting this objection, I think that, instead of the usual leave to amend upon terms, final judgment should be ordered for the defendant upon the demurrer, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 F. 716, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rawson-morrison-mfg-co-v-c-w-hunt-co-circtsdny-1905.