Wooster v. Handy

21 F. 51, 22 Blatchf. 307, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJuly 22, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 21 F. 51 (Wooster v. Handy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wooster v. Handy, 21 F. 51, 22 Blatchf. 307, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334 (circtsdny 1884).

Opinion

Blatchford, Justice.

This suit is brought on two reissued patents. One is reissue No. 6,565, granted to George H. Wooster, July 27, 1875, (on an application for a reissue filed June 22, 1875,) for an “improvement in machines for making ruffles, ” the original patent, .No. 37,550, having been granted to Pipo and Sherwood, Janu■ary 27, 1863, on the invention of John A. Pipo. The other is reissue No. 6,566, granted to George H. Wooster, July 27, 1875, (on an application for a reissue filed July 19, 1875,) for an “improvement in sewing-machines for making band-ruffling,” the original patent, No. 46,424, having been granted to E. 0. Wooster, February 14,1865, on the invention of Thomas Bobjolm. The case was brought to a hearing on pleadings and proofs, and a decision was rendered in April, 1881, (Wooster v. Blake, 8 Fed. Rep. 429,) in favor of-the plaintiffs, on both patents, on which an interlocutory decree was entered, April 30, 1881. The decree adjudged that No. 6,565 was valid so far as ■claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 were concerned; that those claims had been infringed; and that an account of profits and damages should be taken as to such infringement. It stated that, as No. 6,565 had expired by its own limitation, no injunction was granted in reference to it. The decree also adjudged that No. 6,566 was valid so far as claims 8 and 9 were concerned; that those claims had been infringed; that an account of profits and damages should be taken as to such infringement; and that a perpetual injunction should issue as to said claims. The decree further said: “No adjudication is herein made as to any other claims than those above mentioned, of either of said letters patent, in any respect; ” and it reserved the question of costs, and of increase of damages, and all further questions, until the master’s report should come in.

The defendant’s rufflers involved, and held, by the decision, to infringe both patents, were known as the Johnston ruffler and the Toof ruffler, and were sold to be attached to sewing-machines, for ruffling purposes. In regard to the Pipo patent, No. 6,565, the decision considered several patents and inventions set up on the question of novelty, and held that they could not avail. On the defense of the invalidity of the reissue, as not for the same invention as the original, the decision said:' “There is no evidence that anything is found in the reissue No. 6,565, which is not to be found in the description or drawing of the original patent, or in the model accompanying the ap[53]*53plication for that patent.” As to the Bobjohn patent, No. 6,566, the decision considered the question of novelty, and sustained the patent. Although the defense that the reissue was not for the same invention as the original was set up and urged, and it was considered and overruled, no special observations were made in the decision, in regard to it. The remarks in regard to the Pipo reissue wore considered as applying to it.

Some progress was made in taking testimony on the accounting before the master, when, on the ninth of January, 1882, the cases of Miller v. Brass Co. 104 U. S. 350, and James v. Campbell, Id. 356, were decided by the supreme court. The defendant tiioreupon presented to this court, on March 22, 1882, a petition, with notice of an application to be made March 31, 1882, that the prayer of the petition be granted. The application was adjourned and not hoard till June, 1884. The petition states that the said decisions in 104 U. S. “fix and establish rales of law in respect to reissues, different from those stated in mimerous decisions of the circuit court of the United States for the Second circuit in numerous earlier cases; that said decisions of the supreme court are directly in point, as affecting the validity of the said Pipo and Bobjolm reissues; and that the said Pipo reissue and the said Bobjohn reissue must be declared void in accordance with the doctrines laid down in said cases.” One of the prayers of the petition is for a rehearing of the cause on the questions of law involved, in view of the said decisions of the supreme court, and that the interlocutory decree bo opened.

The rehearing asked for is not such a rehearing as is the subject of rule 88 of the equity rules proscribed by the supreme court. That rehearing is one altera final decree, after a decree which is of an appealable character. The present decree is not an appealable decree. The rehearing asked for is a reconsideration of the law of the case on the question of the validity of the reissues, in view of the decisions by the supreme court referred to. The test applied by this court, as iinnouncod by it in deciding the case, was that the reissues were to he sustained as to their claims, inasmuch as there was nothing found in them which was not found in the descriptions or drawings of the original patents, or in the models accompanying the applications for those patents.

The principle, the application of which is invoked by the defendants, is well settled. In Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206, 209, it is said, lliat interlocutory decrees remain under the control of the court and subject to its revision, until the master’s report comes in and is finally acted upon by the court, and the whole of the matters in controversy are disposed of by a final decree. In Fourniquet, v. Perkins, 16 How. 82, there were an interlocutory decree, an accounting under it, a report of a master, exceptions to the report, and an argument thereon. On the argument, the circuit court reconsidered the opinion it had expressed on the merits in the interlocutory decree, and, [54]*54believing that opinion to be incorrect, dismissed the bill. The plaintiff appealed to the supreme court, and that court held the decree of dismissal to be right. It added:

“The counsel for the appellants, however, objects to the decree of dismissal, because it was made at the argument upon the exceptions to the master’s report, and is contrary to the opinion on the merits, expressed by the court in its interlocutory order. But this objection cannot be maintained. The case was at final hearing at the argument upon the exceptions, and all of the previous interlocutory orders in relation to the merits were open for revision and under the control of the court.”

This court, then, is to interpret the law of reissues as it would have done if the cases referred to had been decided by the supreme court before this court made its decision in this case. The rule laid down by the supreme court is, that where it is sought merely to enlarge a claim, there must be a clear mistake and inadvertence, and a speedy application for its correction, with no unreasonable delay; that, in such a case, a patentee cannot wait until other inventors have produced new forms of improvement, and then apply for such an enlargement of his claim as to make it embrace those new forms; and that when it is apparent, from a comparison of the two patents, that the reissue is made to enlarge the scope of the patent, the court may decide whether the delay was unreasonable, and the reissue, therefore, void. This view has been repeatedly asserted and applied by the supreme court in numerous eases decided since those in 104 U. S.

As to the Pipo reissue, No.

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

Related

Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co.
26 F.3d 1573 (Federal Circuit, 1994)
Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co. of Cal.
310 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court, 1940)
United States Envelope Co. v. Transo Paper Co.
229 F. 576 (D. Connecticut, 1916)
Wooster v. Trowbridge
115 F. 722 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1902)
Campbell v. City of New York
35 F. 504 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1888)
Hoe v. Kahler
25 F. 271 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F. 51, 22 Blatchf. 307, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooster-v-handy-circtsdny-1884.