Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co.

136 F. 599, 69 C.C.A. 329, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4505
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 8, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 136 F. 599 (Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 136 F. 599, 69 C.C.A. 329, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4505 (2d Cir. 1905).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We concur in so much of the opinion of the court below as holds that

“If more than one application could be made, the final application must be made within two years after the allowance of the original application, the term ‘the original application,’ as used in this section, meaning the first application.”

There is no ambiguity in the language of the statute as to the limitation of time within which the later application must be made. The provisions for withholding the patent upon the nonpayment of the final fee within six months, and for relief from the effect of such provision, are imperative. The construction contended for by the appellant would permit an indefinite prolongation of a monopoly by means of unlimited forfeitures and renewals, and would nullify the policy of the law, which requires diligence in the prosecution of applications for and issuance of patents. The patent in suit, therefore, was granted by the Commissioner of Patents under a mistake as to the law, but without authority of law, because upon an invalid application. This defense may be raised in an action for infringement. “Where it is evident that the commissioner, under a misconception of the law, has exceeded his authority in granting or reissuing a patent, there is no sound principle to prevent a party sued for its infringement from availing himself of the illegality, independently of any statutory permission so to do.” Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 358, 6 Sup. Ct. 451, 28 L. Ed. 665; Planing-Machine Company v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. Ed. 939.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Harder v. Hayward
150 F.2d 256 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1945)
In re Febrey
135 F.2d 751 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1943)
Lektophone Corp. v. Miller Bros.
37 F.2d 580 (D. Delaware, 1930)
Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt
27 F.2d 823 (Second Circuit, 1928)
General Electric Co. v. Continental Fibre Co.
256 F. 660 (Second Circuit, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 F. 599, 69 C.C.A. 329, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weston-electrical-instrument-co-v-empire-electrical-instrument-co-ca2-1905.