Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 94,26 L.Ed. 939 |
| Parties | LEHNBEUTER v. HOLTHAUS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The bill, filed by Joseph Lehnbeuter and Casper Claes, charged Arnold Holthaus and Anton Holthaus with infringing design patent No. 8814 for show-cases, granted to the complainants jointly, and dated Nov. 30, 1875.
The answer denied that the complainants were the first inventors of the design patented; denied its utility, and the alleged infringement. To sustain these denials all the testimony offered by the defendants was directed.
Upon final hearing the court dismissed the bill, because 'said letters-patent were not good and valid in law,' and the complainants appealed.
The record contains certain stipulations in respect to the evidence. These are:——
'That the following exhibits may be produced by either party at the hearing upon an appeal in the Supreme Court, and used in evidence as a portion of the transcript herein, viz.: 'Defendants' Exhibit, Wiegal Catalogue,' and 'Defendants Exhibit, Maws' Price Current;' also, 'Design Patents Nos. 8287, 8813, and 8814;' also, 'Complainants' Exhibit Holthaus Circular.'
'That it shall be taken, as admitted for the purposes of this case, that said exhibits, 'Wiegal Catalogue' and 'Maws' Price Current,' were issued prior to January, 1874.
'That the circular marked 'Complainants' Exhibit Holthaus Circular' is a copy of circulars issued by the defendants in the month of July, 1877, and subsequently thereto; that the cuts therein correctly represent show-cases made and sold by the defendants in St. Louis, within said Eastern District of Missouri, during and after January, 1877, and before the commencement of this suit, and still made and sold by them; also, that the circular marked 'Complainants' Exhibit Claes & Co., Circular,' is a copy of a publication issued and circulated by complainants in the month of September, 1875, and subsequently thereto; also, that the model marked on bottom 'Complainants' Exhibit Model No. 1,' under the hand of the same notary, correctly represents show-cases made and sold by defendant in said St. Louis during and after the month of January, 1877, and before the commencement of these suits.'
The only witness in the case was Charles K. Pickles, who testified for the complainants that he made the original drawings from which the plates were made of the cuts 33, 34, and 36 of the Holthaus circular; that he made the drawings for Holthaus, the defendant, who gave him cuts from Claes & Co.'s circular, from which to make the plates or prints, and that there were slight changes suggested by Holthaus, which the witness followed in making the drawings.
Circular, and the design patents, numbered respectively 8287, 8813, and 8814, with their drawings, the first granted to Joseph Lehnbeuter, and the other two to Lehnbeuter and Claes, the complainants, were put in evidence. The one last named was that on which this suit was brought.
Mr. Robert H. Parkinson f...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corporation
...rules must be kept in mind. The issuance of a patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility. Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94, 96, 26 L. Ed. 939; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 538, 20 L. Ed. 33; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 498, 23 L. Ed. 952; C......
-
Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries
...having used machines which embody plaintiff's patent, cannot be heard to dispute the utility of the patent. Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94, 96, 97, 26 L. Ed. 939; International Tooth Co. v. Hanks Association (C. C.) 111 F. 920, 921; same case affirmed, 122 F. 74, 58 C. C. A. 180; Cumm......
-
Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corporation
...its certified patents in evidence, they should have been treated as prima facie evidence of their validity. Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94, 96, 26 L. Ed. 939; Fenton Co. v. Office Spec. Co., 12 App. D. C. 201, 216; Consol. Con. Co. v. Hassam Pav. Co. (C. C. A.) 227 F. 436; R. R. Suppl......
-
Claypool v. HOUSTON OIL FIELD MATERIAL COMPANY
...689, 6 S.Ct. 970, 29 L.Ed. 1017; Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 1937, 301 U.S. 168, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed. 983, 984; Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U.S. 94, 26 L.Ed. 939; Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U.S. 601, 11 S.Ct. 670, 35 L.Ed. 294. 1st Circuit: Sheridan v. Silver-Brown Co., D.C.,......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...defenses in infringement actions). For cases articulating a presumption of validity in that context, see, e.g., Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U.S. 94, 96 (1882) ("The patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and neither of these presumptions has been rebutted by the evidenc......