The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 422
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:
FEDERAL REPORTER.
saw in use prior to the discovery by Sampson, is true, as
regards the description of devices, and the time they were
seen in use, you will judge whether the devices covered by the
plaintiff's patent were new at the time of the alleged inven-
tion by Sampson, or whether they were old, as alleged by the
defendants.
As respects the open jaw, which virtually constitutes the
first claim of the patent, there would seem to be no room for
doubt that it was not new, and the plaintiff's counsel, with
commendable candor, has declared in your presence that he
cannot, in view of the evidence, urge you to find that it was
new. Thus the question seems to be narrowed down to the
inquiry whether the brace, or pole support, with its posterior
connection or rest, which virtually constitutes its second
claim of the patent, was new at the time of the alleged dis-
covery by Sampson. I repeat to you, the case, after the close
of the testimony and the summing up of counsel, seems to be
narrowed down to the question whether or not this device,
which constitutes the second claim of the patent, was old at
the time of Sampson's alleged discovery. If, therefore, a
careful examination of all the evidence satisfies you that this
device, which constitutes the second claim, was not new, you
will decide this question in the plaintiff's favor, and find that
the patent is valid to this extent. If you find that this
[referring to the model of it] was also old, then you will find
that the patent is invalid as respects both claims. If you do
not find that this was old, but conclude that Sampson first
invented and applied it, then your verdict, as I have sug-
gested, will be in favor of the plaintiff, and you will treat
the patent as valid to that extent. But if the patent is valid
only to this extent, (and it seems clear that it is not valid be-
yond this extent,) then, inasmutch as there is no evidence of a
license fee which will enable you to ascertain any sum in
which the plaintiff has been damnified or injured on this
account, your verdict must be for the plaintiff for nominal
damages only. Thus it would seem that in no event, under
the evidence, and the plaintiff's position here, can you render
a verdict for the plaintiff for anything beyond nominal dam-
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/m1/436/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.