16 F.1d 413 - Barney v. Peck — 16 F. 413

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1909

1 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Patents for Inventions — iNMtiNeEMENT ou Several Patents — Bill Multifarious — Demurrer.

¶2When a bill alleges infringement of several patents for different inventions, to escalio the objection of multifariousness it must aver that the inventions are capable of conjoint use and are in fact so used by defendant.

¶3Demurrer to Bill.

¶4A. ./. Todd, for complainant.

¶5Br tesen é Steele, for defendant.

¶6Wallace, J.

¶7When the bill alleges infringement of several patents for different inventions, to escape the objection of multifariousness it must aver that the inventions hre capable of conjoint use, and are in fact so used by the defendant. Nellis v. McLanahan, 6 Fisher, Pat. Cas. 286; Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Chillicothe, 7 Fed, Rep. 351; Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 702. The bill here is founded on distinct patents, and alleges that “the defendants have unlawfully used the said patented inventions, and have made and sold skates containing and embodying in their construction said inventions or substantial parts of the same, and still continue soto do.” It does not appear that the several inventions can be embodied in one skate. The averment of the bill would be satisfied by proof that some of the skates made by the defendants infringe one of the patents, and others infringe another patent. It may he that some or all of *414the skates are infringements of all the patents, but the defendants are not required to take the chances' of being compelled to litigate several distinct and unconnected controversies in one suit. ,

¶8The demurrer is sustained.