NATHAN ·MANUF'Q. CO.
(Circwtt CO'W't, D. Ma8Bachmett8. February
. A.billln equity, under Rev. St. tr. S. for relief a/fainst a patent alleged to interfere with patents owned by complainant, cannot besustail\ed where the an· B.wer/ideI\ies such inl;erference, if it. appears that tbe c.laiIUS of tbe respective patents . 0 not cover the'SBJIle invention.' The court cannot go beyond the claims, and consider generally the two inventions as a whole.
In Equity. Bill by the Nathan Manufacturing Complltnyand others against Warren H.Craig, and others, for relief again!1t a,patent alleged to interfere with complainants' patent·. B.ill dismissed. , P. W. Clarke, for complainants. . JilWv" Richardson &: Swmrw, for defendants.
Revised Statutes; whitlh provides that, where there' are:interfering patentS',lahyperson interestfsd may have relief against. thednterJering patentee,! and all partiestiriterestednnder him, by suit in equity against the owner ·of the interfering patent, and the court may ,adjudge :eithElr ofthe patimtsvoid in bill alleges the issue ofletters patent 331,500,datE!dMareh 9, 1886, to: Kaczander and. Ruddy, and oLthe lettElriq)otent'No. 357,931,dated February 15, 1887, to Kaczander,and that the patents are vested by assignment in complail!lants. It further alleg'etthe issue Of letters patent No. '398,583, dated February 26, 1889, to thj!joEtfendant.Warren:H. ' Craig, and that said 'patents: are interfering patents. ' The answer denies that said patents, are ,interfering patents, and avers that, iNhere is an interference, Craigie the prior inventor. Upon a bill of this character, the first question to determine is whether the plitents are' interfering patehts; and, if this is shown; the:next question who is the fi'rst inventor? The invention..whicb a man patents is that which he claims l . and patents do not interfere, .unless they claim the same' invention in whole or in part. UpOll suits brought under this seotion, it'bias, therefore, been !repeatedly held, until it has wellsettled law,.' that two patents interfere,within: the meaning :of this section, only when they claim. in whole or in part, the same invention.. Gold &: Silver. Ore SeparatJing Co. v· United States· DiaintegratingOre 00., 6 Blatchf. 307-310; Reedy. Landinan,:f)5 O. G. 1275; ·. Manufacturing Co., 20 Fed. Rep; 121; 1:22; Pentlarge v. Bushing 00. , ld. '314; Electrical AccumulatlYr Electrie 00., 44 Fed. Rep. Mowry v· .Whitne:v,<14Wall.i4M-440.:!!t is apparent upon examination that .the claims of the Craig patent do not cover the mechanism d:eacribedinthe claims of the two patents owned by the complainantB;dnother words, there are no "interfering claims" here. and this position is substantially admitted by the complainants. Under these circumstances, 1 do not deem it necessary to enter into a comparison of the claims of these different patents. The complainants' position seems to be that, in a bill of
CoL"r, Circuit Judge·. ,; This bill is brought under seotion.4918 of the
BRICKILLD. atTY OF BUF),ALO.
this character, the court may go outside and beyond the claims of the interfeljng patents, and consider generally the two inventions or structures, taken as a whole; and complainantB as an authority upon this point, the case..·of Garratt v. Seibert, 98 U. :::;. 75. In that case, however, the answer did not deny, but rather admitted, an interference of the patents, and it is therefore not an authority a/!:ainst the general doctrine which the courtB have laid down upon this point. Bill dismissed.
et aI. tI.CrrY
OF BUFJrALO ef,
(CITCuit Own, N. D. New York. February 117,1899.)
.tatutes of patents.
do not apply to aotions at law for the infringement of
STATUTBS 01' LIMITATIONS.
At Law. Action by William A. Brickill and others against the city of Buffalo and others to recover damages for infringement of a patent. Raphael J. M08e8, Jr., James A. Hud8on, and Samuel W. Smith, for plaintiffs. George M.BrOUI'Ileand Philip A. Laing, for defendants. Albert H. Walker, amictl8 CUM.
CoXE, District Judge. The only question argued is whether thr state' statute of limitations applies to actions for the infringement of patents. This question has been examined now, as well as on formel' occasions, with· the result that, in my judgment l the weight of precedent and reason is in favor of the proposition that the state statnte!:! do not Itpply. I shall so rule if I preside at the trial of this action. The question, however, has never been decided by the suprtlme court or by any of the circuit courts of appeals, so far as I am aware. and there is great contrariety of opinion in the circuit courts. May v. Ccrwnty of Logan. 30 Fed. Rep. 250, and cases cited on page 257. The defendants should, therefore, be permitted to fave the point. It is thought that the rights of both parties can best be protecttld if the formal ruling is postponed until the trial. Adams v. Stamping Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 270. A decision of the circuit C()urt of appeals will, so far, at least, as the second circuit is concerned, settle the qupstion, which should be presented to that tribunal unembarrassed by any technicalities of pleading. To sustain the demurrer now might tend to complicate the situation should a review become necessary.