AMERICAN SOLID LEATHER BUTTON CO.
STATE NAIL 00.
for the proposition that complainant's performance is a dramatic composition, within the meaning of the copyright act. It is essential to such a composition that it should tell some story. The plot may be simple. It may be but the narrative or representation of a single transaction; but it must repeat or mimic some action, speech, emotion, passion, or character, real or imaginary. And when it does, it is the ideas thus expressed which become subject of copyright. An examination of the dflscription of complainant's dance, as filed for copyright, shows that the end sought for and accomplished was solely the devising of a series of graceful movements, combined with an attractive arrangement of drapery, lights, and shadows, telling no story, portraying no character, depicting no emotion. The merely mechanical movements by which effects are produced on the stage are not subjects of copyright where they convey no ideas whose arrangement makes up a dramatic compo·sition. Surely, those described and practiced here convey, and were devised to convey, to the spectator, no other idea than that a comely woman is illustrating the poetry of motion in a singularly grllceful fashion. Such an idea may be pleasing, but it can hardly be called dramati(). Motion for preliminary injunction denied.
EMPIRE STATE NAIL April 22,1892.)
tCireuU Court. S. D, NfJIP York.
t'aOCE88 PATBNT-BILL FOR INFRINGEMENT-DBMURRER.
A bill which sets forth a patent for a "process" of making furniture natls. and then alleges that defendant, "in infringement of the aforesaid letters patent, II did wrongfully "make, use, and vend to others to be used, furniture nails embracing the improvement set forth and claimed II in said patent, is demurrable for want of a sumcient allegation of infringement of the process.
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 270,239, issued January 9, 1883, to J. Wilson McCrillis, for an "improvement in the process of manufacturing funliture nails and analogous articles." Heard on demurrer to the bill. Demurrer sustained. The bill, after alleging the issuance of the patent, averred "that defendant, well knowing the premises and the rights" secured to your orator as aforesaid, but contriving to injure your orator, and to deprive it of the benefits and advantages which might and otherwise would accrue from said inventions, * * * did, * * * in violation of its rights, and in infringement of the aforesaid letters patent No. 270," 239, unlawfully and wrongfully, and in defiance of the rights of your orator, make, use, and vend to others to be used, furniture nails embracing * * * the improvement set forth and claimed in the aforesaid letters patent No. 270,239." The bill prays that the defendant may be compelled to account for and pay to your orator the income thus unlawfully derived from the violation of the rights of your orator, v .50F. no. 11-59
and be, ffOUl: any ' "Yp,ur, orator prays thl;\typp.r t118 .defendant *. * l!sdn. any manner or: ;, ,* furni,m Yl91ation of tQe ,tights of your orator,as· afore*..and alsQAhQt, yourh(mors * * in and ,prof;i.t". * * * your orator reason of, said The bill contains a rwief . 14at it .may;be ,righteous, to
(4lan,. D. of the. de, . :" . . , is for, process ofmanufactllringfurniture,llaUs. N owbere ts, defendapt ul!es or process, The has tPlide, used, and certain furniture .· . The'patent lor aPJocess, not for a product, the use .orsale of!, the:prOduct' nanS) is, of course; IIOt an Merrill '568-5174; Ditma1' v; Rirx;, 1 Fed. !Wp. 342.· . .N.onisH.he m.aking.o1 furniture nails. even of exactly the same kind as th.at made by the patented the stepsof,th!IPrOCess are l,Ised., Hamml'rschlag v. Garrett, 10 Fed. Rep. 479; Dittmar v. Ri:v, 1 Fed. Rep. 342; Fermentation Ca. v. MaUl, 20 Rep. 725. ' Rowland Cox, opposed. A charge of infringement is sufficient. McCo1l v. Nelson, 121 U. S·1!)t), 1. }Jell Tel. Cpo v. Bou.t!J,ern Tel. po" 34' Fed: 'Rep. '804'. In t'ha latter case; there Wli6 a gen'eralcharge of infringement of a both,a process and an 8l?paratus," The conrt overruled the ul'murrer, citing ihtIDl'l'oUs cases, (whictY see,) inclUding McCoyv. Nel'lon,8upra. In Haven v. Brown, 6 Filih. Pat. qas. bill merl'lydeelares;* . *' '>II in bedstead faste\linli/;s, ana in the sllmegene.ral terms it alleges inft:ini(ement." He then proceeus to say that I.'lutmn'the genti!'al the bill,woUld be bad:" but he overruled the demurrer; adding: "The tbrm of the tidl in the present case rests too dt'ep to be disturbed. We tberefore feel bound to 'the tlemu'ti'erm'est,on on principle, be over:!rIn ,numerous' ollhen cast!stbe,eameductnDe 18 referred to as ODe be l"4t, p,4:30. If there were here any d0l.lbh tCfHred by' profert Qqbe patent " " . .
bIli l19eBrnot. if the, processor complainant's' upon payment of
becRllse the of Illfrlogement by the deBig may be 8Dlended
ITEAM GAUGlIl .. LABTEBN 00. II. WUJJAu/h
1 '( . '
:; , , '
;;; _,' ) :
Claim 1 of letters patent No. 262,169, Issued August I, 1&l2, to Edward Wilhelm, for anbnproved locomotive' headlil]bt, covers "a provided with an opening behind the burner, wbereby hght Is emitted into tbe headligbt case"for iHumlnatlng Sign,,&1 plates ,or ,I,eolles applied to, said, case, SUbS,tantially Be described." Held that, Jnview of, the, pre..existi'ng the claim must limited to a reflector hI!ovi'I1gallopenlng Dear its apexileparate from the burner bole ot chimney hole Of those devices. ,' . . , Claim 2, which covel"8ll.,combinlltlon of "a reflector,ccmst!'1Jcted with an opening behind the burner, and an aUXiliary reflector, whereby the'ligbt emittedbackwaroly through such opening, Is: directed towa.rdsthe signal, plates or lenses." must be to a CQmbination of the of the flrst claim, with its ilIlPNved openIng and an auxiliary reflector, Bud Is not Infl'lnged by a refle,ctor wit,li any opening behind the ,burner and all auxiliary reflector. §2 Fed. ,Rep. 843, a1IIrmed. :
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Distiictof New York. In Equity. Bill bytbe Steam Gauge & Lantern Company against Irvin AI Williams for infringement of patent. Decree dillwissing the bill. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. AlbertlI. Walker, for complainant. Edmund Wetmore, for dehmdant. Before LACOMBE and, SHIPMAN, Circuit 1udges. This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the northern difltrict of New York, which dismissed tbe complainant's bill inequity, founded upon the alleged inirillgement of letters patent No. 262,169, dated August 1, 1882, to Edward Wilhelm, for an improved 10comotiveheadliKht. invention related to "an improvement in that cJass ,of headlights which are, provided with signal plates or lenses in the sides of tbe headlight case," and its object was to illuminate such plates; so that the. letters tbereoncould be easily observed at night. Tbe patentee says in his specification that tbese plates had been illuminated in various ways, "either by direct light thrown upon the signal plates throilgh openings in the reflector on botb sides of the lamp, or by the light wbich. is emitted through the chimney opening of andwbich diffuses itselfin the,upper portion of the headlight case, and also by ligbtreflected backwardly from 'the froni end of tbe headlight case." He further says that his invention consisted "in constructing the reflector with an opening at or near its apex bebind the lamp, whereby light is emitted backwardly into tbe headlight case, where it diffuses itself, and may be utilized for illuminating the signal plates or lenses applied to the headlight case; also in providing such case and reflector with an auxiliary reflE'ctor, whicb deflects the light emitted backwardly through the openings in tbe main reflector, and directs such light upon the signals whicb are desired to be illuminated." The two claims of the patent are as follows: