Smith-Warren Co. v. David Lupton's Sons Co.

139 F. 1008, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4749
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided October 13, 1905·No. No. 31·Published

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The seventh and eighth grounds of demurrer seem to me to be well founded, but it does not follow that the bill must be dismissed. On the contrary, I think that the proper order is to strike out paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23, as containing what at present appears to be irrelevant matter, and require the defendants to answer the rest of the bill. If the answer sets up the Watkins patent as a justification for the defendants’ acts, it will be time enough then to consider what place in the art that patent is entitled to hold, and how far it may be affected by what was done in the office while the application was pending. The clerk is directed to enter the appropriate order.

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

Smith-Warren Co. v. David Lupton's Sons Co., 139 F. 1008, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4749 (circtedpa 1905).

139 F. 1008 (Smith-Warren Co. v. David Lupton's Sons Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.