Whitney v. Boston & A. R.
This text of 50 F. 72 (Whitney v. Boston & A. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendants’ motion to withhold a decree in favor of the plaintiff until the plaintiff shall have disclaimed the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th claims of his patent is denied, upon the ground that, assuming, as the defendants contend, that the evidence in the case proves that said claims cover what had been in public use and on sale for more than two years prior to the plaintiff’s application for his patent, yet, since it appears that the plaintiff was the original and first inventor of the parts of his invention secured by said claims, he is therefore not required by Rev. St. § 4922, in order to entitle himself to a decree for an [73]*73infringement of the second and third claims of his patent, to make disclaimer of the other claims. Manufacturing Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; Telephone Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. Rep. 512; Walk. Pat. § 197. The plaintiff, having waived his right to an account, is entitled to a decree for an injunction against the infringement of the second and third claims of the patent, with costs, and it is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 F. 72, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-boston-a-r-circtdma-1892.