United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

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

United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

89 F. 206, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3046

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

DecidedJuly 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 89 F. 206 (United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 89 F. 206, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3046 (circtwdpa 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

Section 4900 of the Revised Statutes is not applicable here. The patent in suit is exclusively for a process, and therefore the case is not within either the letter or the spirit of section 4900. Even in a case where the patent is within the purview of section 4900, its provisions apply, as against the plaintiff, only “if he makes or sells the article patented.” Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244, 247, 14 Sup. Ct. 576; Campbell v. Mayor, etc., 81 Fed. 182, 184. Moreover, the bill here alleges that the defendant acted “after notice of your orator’s exclusive rights under said letters patent,” and this is not denied in the answer. Finally, upon any view, this defendant would be answerable for damages and profits for infringements persisted in after suit brought The objection to form of decree is overruled.

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

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

Section 4900 of the Revised Statutes is not applicable here. The patent in suit is exclusively for a process, and therefore the case is not within either the letter or the spirit of section 4900. Even in a case where the patent is within the purview of section 4900, its provisions apply, as against the plaintiff, only “if he makes or sells the article patented.” Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244, 247, 14 Sup. Ct. 576; Campbell v. Mayor, etc., 81 Fed. 182, 184. Moreover, the bill here alleges that the defendant acted “after notice of your orator’s exclusive rights under said letters patent,” and this is not denied in the answer. Finally, upon any view, this defendant would be answerable for damages and profits for infringements persisted in after suit brought The objection to form of decree is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. 206, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-mitis-co-v-carnegie-steel-co-circtwdpa-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack