Schmeiser Mfg. Co. v. Lilly

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon

Schmeiser Mfg. Co. v. Lilly

189 F. 631, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5297

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 27, 1911

DocketNo. 3,538

StatusPublished

This text of 189 F. 631 (Schmeiser Mfg. Co. v. Lilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmeiser Mfg. Co. v. Lilly, 189 F. 631, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5297 (circtdor 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAN, District Judge.

This is a suit for an injunction against and an accounting by the defendants who, it is alleged, infringed letters patent No. 490,214, granted to P. V. Sehandoney in January, 1893, for a draft equalizer. The validity of the patent has been before the Circuit Court for the Northern district of California and for the Eastern district of Washington, and in both cases was contested and the patent upheld upon substantially the same testimony as in the present case.

[1] This court will not examine anew the question which has been thus adjudicated, fot in patent cases conclusive effect is accorded by [632]*632each of the Circuit Courts of the United States to a prior judgment of any one of them, wherever the patent, the question, and the evidence are the same in both cases. Office Spec. Mfg. Co. v. Winternight & Cornyn (C. C.) 67 Fed. 928; Wanamaker v. Enterprise Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 791, 3 C. C. A. 672.

Upon the question of infringement, I do not deem it necessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the evidence or comparison of the two devices. It appears plain to me that the Hines patent, which was being used by the defendants at the time this suit was commenced, embodies all the essential elements of the complainant’s patent. They were both intended and designed for the same purpose and perform the same office in substantially the same way. The differences consist wholly in structural details, but the fundamental essential of the two patents is the same.

[2] The complainant’s patent has expired since the commencement of this suit, but that does not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of awarding damages. Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288.

[3] Decree will be entered in favor of complainant, and the case referred to a commissioner to ascertain and report the amount of damages, if any.. Costs will be determined upon final hearing.

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

BEAN, District Judge.

This is a suit for an injunction against and an accounting by the defendants who, it is alleged, infringed letters patent No. 490,214, granted to P. V. Sehandoney in January, 1893, for a draft equalizer. The validity of the patent has been before the Circuit Court for the Northern district of California and for the Eastern district of Washington, and in both cases was contested and the patent upheld upon substantially the same testimony as in the present case.

[1] This court will not examine anew the question which has been thus adjudicated, fot in patent cases conclusive effect is accorded by [632]*632each of the Circuit Courts of the United States to a prior judgment of any one of them, wherever the patent, the question, and the evidence are the same in both cases. Office Spec. Mfg. Co. v. Winternight & Cornyn (C. C.) 67 Fed. 928; Wanamaker v. Enterprise Mfg. Co., 53 Fed. 791, 3 C. C. A. 672.

Upon the question of infringement, I do not deem it necessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the evidence or comparison of the two devices. It appears plain to me that the Hines patent, which was being used by the defendants at the time this suit was commenced, embodies all the essential elements of the complainant’s patent. They were both intended and designed for the same purpose and perform the same office in substantially the same way. The differences consist wholly in structural details, but the fundamental essential of the two patents is the same.

[2] The complainant’s patent has expired since the commencement of this suit, but that does not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of awarding damages. Ross v. Ft. Wayne, 63 Fed. 466, 11 C. C. A. 288.

[3] Decree will be entered in favor of complainant, and the case referred to a commissioner to ascertain and report the amount of damages, if any.. Costs will be determined upon final hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 F. 631, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmeiser-mfg-co-v-lilly-circtdor-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack