United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

89 F. 206, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3046
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania·Decided July 30, 1898·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

89 F. 206 (United States Mitis Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. E. F. Drew & Co.
188 F. Supp. 353 (D. Delaware, 1960)
Wagner v. Corn Products Refining Co.
28 F.2d 617 (D. New Jersey, 1928)
Son v. Pressed Steel Car Co.
21 F.2d 528 (S.D. New York, 1927)
Flat Slab Patents Co. v. Northwestern Glass Co.
281 F. 51 (Eighth Circuit, 1922)
United States Mitis Co. v. Midvale Steel Co.
135 F. 103 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1904)