CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. M'KEESPORT LIGHT
,anPs traps, it fonows that:defendant's infiingethefourth claim of the Ligowski patent. The fifth Claim, having been found invalid, requires' no further consideration. The defendant's also infringe the Bloomp'a;tent. The traps constructed as shown by exhibits, "American Field;" and "Portion of Defendant's New Trap," have every element of every claim of the Bloom trap, combined and operated substantially as specified in the Bloom patent. The trap designated "Exhibit Defendant's Trap," has not "a trip-latch to which the lever may be connected at varying distances from its position of rest," and it is not, therefore, an infringement of the fourth claim, but it does infringe all the remaining claims. The trap constructed as shown by "Exhibit Americall Clay-Bird Co. Trap, No.4," omits the recoil spring described and claimed by Bloom, ,bl,l,t ,embodies every other element of his patent, and is aD infringementof'tlre 'fourth and seventh clahns.· ,. , . A decree against the defendant for an injunction and account will be entered, but without costs as to the Ligowski patent, by reasoliof the invalidity ofthe fifthoUrlm thereof.
ELECTRIO. LIGHT. Co.
t1. MC!<EESPORT LIGHT
w: D. Pennsylvania.
'PATENTS' FOR lNVENTIONs-SmVERAL ASSIGNMENTS BEFORE ISSUE.
Letters patent issuedto.the assignee oithe inventor are not voldbecB.lllll:prior to the issuance thereof such assignee had made an assignment of the invention to IL third person, who had assigned the same to still another person,all the assignments being recorded in thepatent·office; but by operation oflawthe legal title to the patent, upon the issuance thereof, eo instantivested in the ultimate assignee. b'ollowing Mght 00. v. Light 00.,25 Fed. Rep'..719. I .
InEquity. " . , ' Sur demurrer to bill of complaint.
John (J.TilmlinsDn,' for 'respondent.
AcilltsON, ';T. The preCise question' here presented was the ease of Light Co. v. Light Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 719, and was decided favorably to the plaintiff. I have carefully read the opinion of Judge WALLACE, and perceive no reason for doubting the correctness of his C011Clusion. How can it be said that the patent was issued withoutauthority of law, and therefore is void, when in fact it was.issued to the very perSOIl by sectiQn 4895, Rev. St., viz., ,assignee of the in'ventor"? There was, a literal compliimce with the provisions '.of thll lltatute. But as by operation qf: law the legal titJ,e to the patent, ,uponth'e tlfereOf, eo,instanti ;vested plaintiff ultimate assign'ee, 'the substantial resu1t was the same as if it had formally issued to the plaintiff. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477. Whilethis
view saves the patent, and subservesthe justice of this case, it neither runs counter to sound public policy, nor tends to any evil consequences, so fat as! Call see. And now. March 17, 1888, the demurrer is overruled,witb lllave to the defendant to answer the bill within 30 days.
«(Jirc'Uit Oourt, No D. New York, , March 19, 1888.)
'Theinven'tlon covered by letters patent No. 126.031. 'Of April 23,1872, to John J Cowell, for an "improvement In sash balances." relatesto a cast metal pulJey,box,arrd consists, in the second plaim, in forming the box with tw.o or more semi-tubular swellings, one at each end of the. box, adapted to fit augeJ,'holes'bo'red tn the frame for inserting the box. Held, that the improvement, though a very simple one, involved sgmething more than ordinary mechanical skill, and that it showed inventive novelty in the saving of ti me and attention to details called for in the use of prior devices. Thefactt.hat as soon as a patented improvement was made and introdnced, its advantages over devices which had preceded it became manifest at once, and it. cPQlIPended itself. to tb,e jubliC as ,a practical and desirable, iMprovement; a1fdrds'a safercrite!1on 0 inventive novelty than any subsequent opinion of an expert or intuition of a judge.
SAME-EvIDENCE OF INVENTIVE NOVELTY.
8, SAME-ANTICIPATION-'B'i PRIOR PATENTS; In letters patent No 64,957, of May 21,1867, to Simon Drum, the method of inserting pulley-boxes in the window frall)e by making an auger-hole at each ,enllof the proposedrecells, alld. cutting away the, intermediate wood, is de. ,scribed. and the speciticatioDs set out an oblong puUey-box with. rounded ends, the arcn. of which would correspond with the srch of the auger-holes. Held anticipatio ll of leHers patent No. 126,001. of April 23, 1872, to John J.. CowCjl!, for an "improvement in sash balances, "the essentialfeature of the . '.', Jll',:i!le, viz., the semi-tubular swellings, being wanting.
'fhe invention covered by the second claim of letters patent No. 126,031, of April 23, 1872. to John J. Cowell, for an "improvement in sash balances, " relates to a cast metal pulley-box, and consists in formingibll box with two or more semi-tubular swellings, one at each end of the box'"adapted to tit angerholes bored in the frame for inserting the box. The, device covered by letters patent No, 185,369, of December 12,1876. to John Vettei"lein, is provided with semi-tubular swellings, not only at each end, like the (Jowell !.;ox, but also with practically connect with each other.' lteldan infringeinllnt; , ' ,
I ' ,
Nelson Davenport, for complainant. Esek Cowen, for responden.t.
J,. The sepondclaim of letters patent t granted to John Cowell, AJ}ril28. 1872, for all "improvement in is in conti'oversyin this suit. The invention in question relates to metal' JlUlley"box, and consists in forming the box with two or mote