Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 F. 295

Schultz v. Ostrander

United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · decided 1886-04-20

<p>Patents for Inventions—Reissue—Enlarging Claim—Steam-Pumps.</p> <p>The first, second, third, and sixth claims of reissued letters patent No. 9,818, granted to M. Schultz for an improvement in steam-pumps, held, unlawful expansions of the original patent, and therefore void.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1894

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-04-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Patents for Inventions—Reissue—Enlarging Claim—Steam-Pumps.

¶2The first, second, third, and sixth claims of reissued letters patent No. 9,818, granted to M. Schultz for an improvement in steam-pumps, held, unlawful expansions of the original patent, and therefore void.

¶3In Equity. Suit for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 9,818, granted to M. Schultz for an improvement in steam-pumps.

¶4L. M. Hosea, for complainant.

¶5Charles A. Hawley, for defendant.

¶7*296Treat, J.

¶8Under the admissions of counsel that the defendant does not infringe the fourth and fifth claims of the reissued patent sued on, (No. 9,818,) the court is brought sharply to a determination of the question as to whether the other claims in the said reissued patent are expansions of the original patent, and void in law. The struggle seems to be to cover, under reissue, the frame-work employed on the pump, of which there was nothing suggested in the original patent. Hence the court holds that the first, second, third, and sixth claims of said reissued patent are unlawful expansions of the original patent, and therefore void.

¶9Bill dismissed, with- costs.

/27/f1d/295 · .json · Public domain