Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co.

87 F. 868, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
DecidedJune 15, 1898
DocketNo. 936
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 F. 868 (Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co., 87 F. 868, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752 (circtdct 1898).

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

To this bill in equity for infringement of patent No. 26,587, granted to complainant February 2, 1897, for a design for a horseshoe calk, defendant demurs on the ground that said design “is the product of mere mechanical skill, not amounting to a patentable invention.” Tbe defendant, in his brief, cites a number of patents, and asks the court to take judicial notice thereof, and (hereupon to hold that ihe configuration claimed in the patent in suit is lacking in originality and beauty. The court has no personal knowledge as to these matters, and does not understand that, in a hearing on a demurrer, it is its duty to investigate the prior art. As a matter of fact, the writer supposed that the ordinary horseshoe calk was an integral part of the horseshoe, hammered to a point by a blacksmith. It is perhaps possible that evidence might be introduced to show that said design was patentable, as a “new and original shape or configuration of an article of manufacture.” Tbe demurrer is therefore overruled.

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

Related

Star Ball Retainer Co. v. Klahn
145 F. 834 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 F. 868, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-blodgett-clapp-co-circtdct-1898.