Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke
Decision Date | 24 March 1887 |
Parties | KAOLATYPE ENGRAVING CO. and another v. HOKE and another. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This is a suit brought October, 1886, against Joseph W. Hoke and Charles D. Moody, to restrain the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 153,084, granted July 14, 1874, to Maurice Joyce, for an improvement in processes of producing relief-line metal plates for printing, etc. The bill alleges that Mr. Joyce was the first inventor of the improvement described in said patent; that the defendants are 'doing business under the name of the Hoke Engraving Company;' and 'that since the fourteenth day of July, 1874, and on divers times and occasions between that time and the time of filing this, your orators', bill of complaint, the defendants herein, Joseph W. Hoke and Charles D. Moody, in the city of St. Louis, in the Eastern district of Missouri, * * * have made, used, and sold, and caused to be made, used and sold, and are not making, using, and selling, large numbers of plates produced by the process shown, described and claimed in the aforesaid letters patent. ' The Kaolatype Engraving Company sues as assignee of the patent and the other defendant as licensee of the Kaolatype Engraving Company. The assignment of the patent is alleged to have been executed February 11, 1880, but no assignment of any right of action is alleged to have been made.
A copy of the specification of the patent is made a part of the bill. The claims are as follows:
The specification states that the plates, when engraved, 'resemble a mould for a stereotype plate as used in the clay or plater process of stereotyping, except that the lines and letters are cut entirely through the plaster,' and that the metal stereotype is cast 'in any manner usual in the stereotypers' art.' The only advantage claimed is the speed with which the mould may be manufactured.
It was contended on behalf of the complainants, among other things, that the demurrer admitted patentable invention.
The other material facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
George H. Knight, for complainants.
Benjamin F. Rex, for defendants.
1. In the above case the court is of the opinion that it sufficiently appears from the bill that the defendants are jointly...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Dingman
-
Harold Lloyd Corporation v. Witwer
...v. Augur, 7 Blatchf. 86, Fed. Cas. No. 3,879; Merriam v. Smith C. C. 11 F. 588; May v. Juneau County C. C. 30 F. 241; Kaolatype Engraving Company v. Hoke C. C. 30 F. 444." I think that the language in the cases just referred to is more suggestive of a transfer of causes of action for past i......
-
Krell, Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co.
... ... 991; Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart, ... 158 U.S. 68, 15 Sup.Ct. 745, 39 L.Ed. 899; Kaolatype ... Engraving Co. v. Hoke (C.C.) 30 F. 444; N.Y. Belting & P. Co ... v. N.J. Car-Spring & Rubber ... ...
-
I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
...Industries Co. v. Grace, 52 F. 124; Goebel v. Supply Co., 55 F. 825; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 F. 600; Dick v. Well Co., 25 F. 105; Kaolatype Co. v. Hoke, 30 F. 444; Coop Development Inst., 47 F. 899; Krick v. Jansen, 52 F. 823; Manufacturing Co. v. Housman, 58 F. 870; Davock v. Railroad Co., ......