The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 418
xiv, 928 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
FPDEBAL BRPORTM.
separate and general license fee for the use of the jaw, which
virtually represents, as I have before stated, the first claim of
the patent, of $10 per car. There is no evidence of any
license fee having been established for the use of the brace, or
pole support, with its posterior attachment, or rest, which
constitutes the second claim. If, therefore, the patent were
found to be valid as respects the first claim, and not as respects
the second, the plaintiff's right to recover would be limited to
a sum not exceeding,$10 per car. On the other hand, if the
patent were found to be valid as respects the second claim-
the, braqe, with its support-and not valid as respects the first,
then, inasmuch as .o license fee has been established for the
separate use of this device and its attachments, the plaintiff's
right to recover would be limited to nominal damages only,
-which I have stated to you would be six cents.
Thus far I have spoken of the plaintiff's prima facie case
alone, and the findings referred to would, I repeat, be justified
if the testimony went no further. The defendants, however,
assert, and have produced evidence tending to prove-First,
that in the year 1874, and again in 1875, the plaintiff author-
ized them to apply the patented devices gratuitously, there-
after, to their cars and poles; and, second, that the devices were
not new, as respects either of the claims, at the time of the
alleged invention by Sampson; and that the patent is, there-
fore, invalid.
If the first of these allegations is proved to your satisfac-
tion, the plaintiff cannot recover, in any event, for the use of
the device by defendants on the cars and poles manufac-
tured after such authorization. If the second allegation is
proved, to wit, that the devices--both of them-covered by the
claims were not new, but had been known and similarly
applied and used before Sampson's alleged invention, the
plaintiff cannot recover anything; for, in such case, the
patent is void. If one of the claims,-and I invite your
attention particularly to these distinctions,-if one of the
claims was not new at the time referred to, and the other was,
the validity of the patent and the plaintiff's right to recover
jp limited to the latter-to the one which was new. Thus we
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
Boyle, Peyton. The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880., legislative document, 1881; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc36333/m1/432/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.