Travers v. Beyer

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

Travers v. Beyer

26 F. 450, 23 Blatchf. 423, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1959

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 F. 450 (Travers v. Beyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Travers v. Beyer, 26 F. 450, 23 Blatchf. 423, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1959 (circtndny 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The only question not decided at the hearing of this cause was whether the defendants infringe the second claim of the complainant’s patent, by manufacturing and selling the distending hammock blocks which are mentioned in the claim. The claim is as follows:

“ (2) The combination of a hammock, A, having suspension ropes, f, f, with detachable distending blocks, g, g, which are notched at their lower edge to space said ropes, f, f, substantially as specified.”

The detachable notched distending blocks are the essence of the invention specified in this claim. They are designed to keep the hammock properly distended when in use, at the option of the user, and to be readily removable for convenience when the hammock is not in use, or when the user desires to dispense with them. The blocks are of no practical utility or value except for the special purpose of the patentee. The defendants do-not make or sell hammocks, but they are manufacturers of the blocks described in the specification, and sell them to dealers in hammocks, who sell them with or without the hammocks, at the option of the purchasers.

The defendants rely upon the well-settled rule, of common application, that the making and selling of the separate materials of a patented combination is not an infringement of the rights of the inventor. The claim might readily have been so expressed as to preclude any doubt of its sufficiency to protect the patentee, and it is to be regretted that it was.not more carefully framed. Nevertheless, upon the authority of Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65, (followed in Richardson v. Noyes, 10 O. G. 501, and Bowker v. Dowes, 15 O. G. 510, the defendants cannot escape liability for infringement. They are making and putting upon the market an article which, of necessity, to their knowledge, is to be used for the purpose of infringing the complainant’s patent. They thereby concert with those to whom they sell the [451]*451blocks to invade the complainant’s rights. They are intentional promoters of the ultimate act of infringement.

A decree is ordered for the complainant.

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

Wallace, J.

The only question not decided at the hearing of this cause was whether the defendants infringe the second claim of the complainant’s patent, by manufacturing and selling the distending hammock blocks which are mentioned in the claim. The claim is as follows:

“ (2) The combination of a hammock, A, having suspension ropes, f, f, with detachable distending blocks, g, g, which are notched at their lower edge to space said ropes, f, f, substantially as specified.”

The detachable notched distending blocks are the essence of the invention specified in this claim. They are designed to keep the hammock properly distended when in use, at the option of the user, and to be readily removable for convenience when the hammock is not in use, or when the user desires to dispense with them. The blocks are of no practical utility or value except for the special purpose of the patentee. The defendants do-not make or sell hammocks, but they are manufacturers of the blocks described in the specification, and sell them to dealers in hammocks, who sell them with or without the hammocks, at the option of the purchasers.

The defendants rely upon the well-settled rule, of common application, that the making and selling of the separate materials of a patented combination is not an infringement of the rights of the inventor. The claim might readily have been so expressed as to preclude any doubt of its sufficiency to protect the patentee, and it is to be regretted that it was.not more carefully framed. Nevertheless, upon the authority of Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65, (followed in Richardson v. Noyes, 10 O. G. 501, and Bowker v. Dowes, 15 O. G. 510, the defendants cannot escape liability for infringement. They are making and putting upon the market an article which, of necessity, to their knowledge, is to be used for the purpose of infringing the complainant’s patent. They thereby concert with those to whom they sell the [451]*451blocks to invade the complainant’s rights. They are intentional promoters of the ultimate act of infringement.

A decree is ordered for the complainant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. 450, 23 Blatchf. 423, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travers-v-beyer-circtndny-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack