Sherman v. Nutt

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Sherman v. Nutt

35 F. 149, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2434

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedMay 23, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 35 F. 149 (Sherman v. Nutt) 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

Sherman v. Nutt, 35 F. 149, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2434 (circtdct 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Shipman, J.

This is a general demurrer to a bill in equity for an injunction against the infringement of letters patent, which are owned by the plaintiff. The patent is for an improvement which was jointly invented by the plaintiff'and defendant, who made joint application for a patent. Pending the application, the defendant assigned to the plaintiff all his interest in said invention and said patent. The parties are citizens of this state. The bill alleges that the defendant is now constructing, in this state, a machine, with full intent to use the same, in infringement of said patent, and it is infringing and will infringe upon [150]*150the plaintiff’s exclusive rights thereunder. The demurrer is upon the ground—it being admitted that this court has jurisdiction of the cause only by reason of its subject-matter, and that the jurisdiction of the court is such only as is authorized or conferred by the statutes of the United States,—that a bill in equity, in the circuit court, between parties who are residents of the same state will not lie to prevent an anticipated infringement, no infringement having actually occurred. Section 4921 of the Revised Statutes provides that “the several courts vested with jurisdiction of cases arising under the patent laws shall have power to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” In iny opinion the suit is one arising under the patent laws of the United States, and is properly brought. “The case is not like that of an action at law for the breach of a patent, to support which it is indispensable to establish a breach before the suit was brought.” “A bill will lie for an injunction if the patent right is admitted, or has been established, upon well-grounded proof of an apprehended intention to violate the patent right.” Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 749. The same doctrine is declared in Poppenhusen v. Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. 184.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

Shipman, J.

This is a general demurrer to a bill in equity for an injunction against the infringement of letters patent, which are owned by the plaintiff. The patent is for an improvement which was jointly invented by the plaintiff'and defendant, who made joint application for a patent. Pending the application, the defendant assigned to the plaintiff all his interest in said invention and said patent. The parties are citizens of this state. The bill alleges that the defendant is now constructing, in this state, a machine, with full intent to use the same, in infringement of said patent, and it is infringing and will infringe upon [150]*150the plaintiff’s exclusive rights thereunder. The demurrer is upon the ground—it being admitted that this court has jurisdiction of the cause only by reason of its subject-matter, and that the jurisdiction of the court is such only as is authorized or conferred by the statutes of the United States,—that a bill in equity, in the circuit court, between parties who are residents of the same state will not lie to prevent an anticipated infringement, no infringement having actually occurred. Section 4921 of the Revised Statutes provides that “the several courts vested with jurisdiction of cases arising under the patent laws shall have power to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” In iny opinion the suit is one arising under the patent laws of the United States, and is properly brought. “The case is not like that of an action at law for the breach of a patent, to support which it is indispensable to establish a breach before the suit was brought.” “A bill will lie for an injunction if the patent right is admitted, or has been established, upon well-grounded proof of an apprehended intention to violate the patent right.” Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story, 749. The same doctrine is declared in Poppenhusen v. Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. 184.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. 149, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-nutt-circtdct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack