KNEELAND and others
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Pennsylvania.
PATENT-INCEPTIO!i 0'" INVElil'I'ION.-"
Geo. H. Ch1'isty, for complainanb. Bakewell cf: Kerr, for defendants. McKENNAN, C. J. The only defence set up and relied upon in this case is that the complainant E. G. Kneeland is not the nrst and original inventor of the device described and elaimed .in his patent. This defence rests entirely upon alleged prior invention by one Robert M. Davis. The decisive question, then, in the ease is one of dates. It would not be profitable to collate the proofs on this point. That Kneeland conceived the idea of his invention in 1863 ; that he described it partially to different persons afterwards; that he made sketches, and had a drawing of it made in the summer of 1864; and that he was diligent in reducing it to a practical form, and in obtaining a patent for it, is all satisfactorily shown. The precise date of the occurrence of these facts does not appear, but it is evident that the statements of the witnesses on this point are approximately correct, because, from the nature of the transactions stated, they must have occurred, if the witnesses are to be believed at all, sometime anteri?f to the date of the application for the patent, which wa.s February 27, 1865. It is not satisfactorily proved that before the date of Kneeland's invention, thus established, the device or Davis was made and used. There is at least plausible reason for the inference that the conception of Davis' valve was not matured in his own mind earlier than the latter part of 1864, and was not constructed and used until sometime during the
year 1865. This, at least, seems to me to be elear, that the conception and description of Davis' valve is not carried back by any witness to the time when it is shown Kneeland described and sketched his invention in the early part of September, 1864. That this is the latest period a.t which Kneeland's invention can be fixed is settled by numerous deeisions. As was said in Reeves v. The Keystone Bridge Co., 1 Off. Gaz. 466: "But a patentee, whose patent is assailed upon the ground of want of novelty, may show, by sketches and drawings, the date of his inceptive invention, and if he has exercised reasonable diligence in perfecting and ada.pting it, and in applying for his patent, its protection will be carried. back to such date." Kneeland's inceptive inventiDn was the earliest, and he was diligent in perfecting and adapting it, and in for his patent. He is, therefore, prior in right to Davis, and is. entitled to a decree as prayed for. Let a decree accordingly be prepared.
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York.
lNFRINGEMENT-8UIT BY MARRIED
May 27, 1880.}
WOMAN.-In the southern district of New York a married woman is not disqualified by reason of coverture from bringing and maintaining a suit in her own name, without joinder of her hmband, for the infringement of a patent within the state of New York. .
Infringement of patent·
. Ali1"aham L. Jacobs, for plaintiff. T. B. Kerr, for defendant.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. This is a suit in equity for the infringement of letters patent. The bill alleges that the plaintiff is the 80le owner of the entire patent. The answer sets up that the plaintiff was, at the time of bringing this suit, a married woman, having a husband, Blaze Lorillard, in full life, and that by reason of coverture the plaintiff is incapable of, and