Scaife v. Fulton

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

Scaife v. Fulton

21 F. Cas. 616, 2 Ban. & A. 235, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F. Cas. 616 (Scaife v. Fulton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scaife v. Fulton, 21 F. Cas. 616, 2 Ban. & A. 235, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801 (circtedpa 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

McKENNAN, Circuit Judge.

The novelty of the invention claimed by the complainant here is contested, but I do not feel called upon to say whether successfully or not, because the bill must be dismissed on another ground. Whatever may be the capabilities of the invention described in the patent, its character and scope are so circumscribed by the specifications and claims that the respondents cannot be adjudged to be infringers.

The complainant's and the respondents’ structures are operated by the application of different forces, and are of different construction, and are, therefore, not substantially identical. I deem it only necessary to make this general statement to indicate the reason for which the decree is made.

Bills dismissed at cost of complainant.

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

McKENNAN, Circuit Judge.

The novelty of the invention claimed by the complainant here is contested, but I do not feel called upon to say whether successfully or not, because the bill must be dismissed on another ground. Whatever may be the capabilities of the invention described in the patent, its character and scope are so circumscribed by the specifications and claims that the respondents cannot be adjudged to be infringers.

The complainant's and the respondents’ structures are operated by the application of different forces, and are of different construction, and are, therefore, not substantially identical. I deem it only necessary to make this general statement to indicate the reason for which the decree is made.

Bills dismissed at cost of complainant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Cas. 616, 2 Ban. & A. 235, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scaife-v-fulton-circtedpa-1876.