Rudolph v. Williams

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Rudolph v. Williams

62 F. 577, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 F. 577 (Rudolph v. Williams) 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

Rudolph v. Williams, 62 F. 577, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980 (circtsdny 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

OOXE, District Judge.

It is argued by the defendants that a court of equity should not, under the provisions of section 4915, award a patent to a party who has litigated the question of priority of invention through all stages of the patent office, and been defeated. simply because the court, if the question had been originally presented to it, would have reached a different conclusion, it is insisted that something more than the ordinary quantum of evidence is required of a complainant who seeks to secure a decree, upon a simple question of fact, at variance with the deliberately expressed judgment of the patent office officials, and, it is suggested, that the action must proceed upon the same lines as though it were a bill filed to set aside a judgment at law. There is certainly force in these propositions,¹ but it is unnecessary to discuss them for the reason that, upon the record now presented, the court is of the opinion that the weight of evidence sustains the contention of the defendants. There is too much of suspicion, improbability and contradiction surrounding the complainants’ • evidence to justify the court in giving it credence.

The evidence here is substantially what it was in the interference proceedings, and as the salient points have been clearly stated in the three opinions there rendered it is unnecessary to recapitu[582]*582late them here. The reasons for the decision in Williams’ favor', are found at length in the opinion of the commissioner. They cannot be stated with greater cogency. I agree with him.

The bill, is dismissed.

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

OOXE, District Judge.

It is argued by the defendants that a court of equity should not, under the provisions of section 4915, award a patent to a party who has litigated the question of priority of invention through all stages of the patent office, and been defeated. simply because the court, if the question had been originally presented to it, would have reached a different conclusion, it is insisted that something more than the ordinary quantum of evidence is required of a complainant who seeks to secure a decree, upon a simple question of fact, at variance with the deliberately expressed judgment of the patent office officials, and, it is suggested, that the action must proceed upon the same lines as though it were a bill filed to set aside a judgment at law. There is certainly force in these propositions,¹ but it is unnecessary to discuss them for the reason that, upon the record now presented, the court is of the opinion that the weight of evidence sustains the contention of the defendants. There is too much of suspicion, improbability and contradiction surrounding the complainants’ • evidence to justify the court in giving it credence.

The evidence here is substantially what it was in the interference proceedings, and as the salient points have been clearly stated in the three opinions there rendered it is unnecessary to recapitu[582]*582late them here. The reasons for the decision in Williams’ favor', are found at length in the opinion of the commissioner. They cannot be stated with greater cogency. I agree with him.

The bill, is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. 577, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-v-williams-circtsdny-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack