Crier v. Innes

Decision Date16 March 1909
Docket Number69.
PartiesCRIER v. INNES et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Frank C. Curtis, for appellant.

John W Gordon (Richard A. Hoar and Streeter & Hollis, of counsel) for appellees.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

NOYES Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in equity charging the infringement of design patent No. 27,115 issued May 25, 1897, to William H. Young for a design for a sarcophagus monument, and claiming an injunction and damages. Assuming that the patent is valid, infringement is obvious. Consequently the question of validity is the one of primary importance.

The defendants first contend that the patent is invalid for want of invention. But, in considering this contention, we are met at the outset with a decree of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York holding in a contested case where the same claim was made, and much evidence of the prior art presented, that this identical patent was valid. Young v Daley (decree filed February 25, 1902). Upon appeal the decree was affirmed by this court (120 F. 1023, 56 C.C.A 686), although it appears that the particular errors assigned by the appellant related to other points than the validity of the patent. This decree, being between other parties, does not constitute res adjudicata. We are not constrained to follow it upon any principle of stare decisis. Still we think an orderly administration of justice in patent causes requires, as a general rule (to which this case does not constitute an exception), that when a patent, after full hearing, has been declared by the Circuit Court to be valid and such decree has been affirmed by this court, we should follow the decision in a subsequent case involving the validity of the same patent, and not presenting any essentially different evidence, notwithstanding the claim of invalidity was not urged upon this court upon the prior appeal.

The defendants, however, insist that the testimony presented in this case is essentially different from that appearing in the earlier case. It is true that the witnesses are different, and that many new drawings are shown in this record. But, after a comparison of the exhibits in the two cases, we cannot say that the conclusions to be drawn with respect to them are materially different. In neither case was precise anticipation shown. In both cases drawings were produced containing parts similar to parts of the patented design, and it was claimed that the association of such parts in such design called for mere mechanical skill, and not invention. The scope of the former inquiry seems to have been substantially the same as that of the present, and the drawings of several of the patents shown therein are quite as like the design of the patent as any of the drawings here.

We, therefore, think that we should follow the decision in the prior case, and hold that the patent possesses patentable novelty. And it is also proper to say that, considering this case without regard to the other, we think it distinctly the better view that the patentee, while availing himself of parts old in the art, so united them in his design as to produce a completed whole having a new and pleasing effect distinct from the effect of the separate parts-- that he obtained a new result, and consequently a valid patent.

It is next contended that the patent is invalid because it relates to a monument which is not 'a manufacture' within the meaning of the design patent statute. Rev. St. Sec. 4929 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3398). We think this contention not well founded. A monument is manufactured, and in our opinion is a 'manufacture,' and not-- as urged by the defendants-- a species of architecture. It comes within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 7 Noviembre 1961
    ...Co., 128 F. 738, 740, 741 (2 Cir., 1904); Deere & Webber Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 153 F. 177, 180, 181 (8 Cir., 1907); Crier v. Innes, 170 F. 324, 326-327 (2 Cir., 1909); Steinfur Patents Corporation v. William Beyer, Inc., 62 F.2d 238 (2 Cir., 1932); Gould-National Batteries, Inc. v. Sono......
  • Cold Metal Process Company v. Republic Steel Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 8 Junio 1956
    ...the license occupied only a part of the trial time. The division of costs was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Crier v. Innes, 2 Cir., 170 F. 324, 327; H. H. Robertson Co. v. Klauer Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 98 F.2d It was proper for the District Court in its judgment dismissing the compla......
  • State v. Hennessy Co.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1924
    ...& Tile Co., 101 Iowa, 170, 70 N. W. 115. Packing products: Engle v. Sohn, 41 Ohio St. 691, 52 Am. Rep. 103. Sarcophagus: Crier v. Innes, 170 F. 324, 95 C. C. A. 508. Coke: Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co., 157 Pa. 507, 27 A. 373, 22 L. R. A. 232. Animal charcoal: Schriefer v. Wood, 5 Blatch......
  • American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Medical Engineering Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 4 Octubre 1993
    ...566 (1869) (decided under the marking statute of 1861, Act of March 2, 1861, ch. LXXXVIII Sec. 13, 12 Stat. 249 (1863)); Crier v. Innes, 170 F. 324, 326 (2d Cir.1909) (decided under R.S. 4900, U.S.Comp.Stat.1901, p. 3388); Gordon v. Easy Washing Mach. Corp., 39 F.Supp. 202, 203, 49 USPQ 321......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT