Dederick v. Whitman Agricultural Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1886 |
| Citation | 26 F. 763 |
| Parties | DEDERICK v. WHITMAN AGRICULTURAL CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
The complainant sues as assignee. The only evidence offered of the execution of an assignment to him is a certified copy of an unacknowledged instrument on record in the patent office which purports to be a duly executed assignment. The admission of the copy was objected to by the defendant. The first claim of letters patent No. 126,394 is as follows:
'(1) The combination of the lever or sweep, H, with the lever G, follower, F, and box, A, of a baling-press, when constructed to operate, substantially as herein described.'
The first claim of letters patent No. 199,052 is as follows:
'(1) In a portable press the combination of a horizontal guide-frame with a reciprocating follower pitman, and pivoted double cam at the end of tongue or a sweep-lever of press, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.'
L. Hill and Fisher & Rowell, for complainant.
William H. King and Dyer, Lee & Ellis, for defendant.
This suit is brought upon the first claims respectively of letters patent No. 126,394 and letters patent No. 199,052, for alleged infringements thereof by the defendant. Objection has been interposed by the defendant as to the proofs of assignments of said patents to the complainant. The court holds that the proofs of said assignments respectively are complete in the absence of countervailing testimony.
As to the first claim of patent No. 126,394, the court decides that the same is for the combination therein named, involving as essential thereto the peculiar construction of the press-box. There is nothing in said combination justifying the contention of counsel that it covers every use of a toggle-joint which passes the center line. It must be observed that the claim is for a combination of certain elements of which the press-box of a peculiar construction was a prominent feature. An examination of the patent does not show with any distinctness that any new or old device for such a toggle-joint passing the center line entered into the combination as a distinctive element or any part thereof.
So far as the first claim of patent No. 199,052 is involved the essential inquiry pertains to the use of the double cam in the combination stated, whereby the result sought could be more usefully and effectively produced. That combination was of several elements, possibly all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co.
...Cas. No. 1,953; Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370, Fed. Cas. No. 10, 738; Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361, Fed. Cas. No. 8,182; Dederick v. Agricultural Co., 26 F. 763; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American Paper Pail Box Co., 55 F. 488. The same theory as to the probative force of records......
-
National Paint Removing Co. of Washington v. Cochran
...... expressing a contrary opinion (section 9444, Comp. Stats.,. note 12) are Dederick v. Whitman Agricultural Co. (C.C. 1886) 26 F. 763; National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. American ......
-
Eastern Dynamite Co. v. Keystone Powder Mfg. Co.
......No. doubt there are authorities entitled to respect which hold. otherwise ( Dederick v. Agricultural Co. (C.C.) 26 F. 763; Natl. Folding Box Co. v. American Paper Pail Co. (C.C.) ......
-
National Folding Box & Co. v. American Paper Pail & Box Co.
...appears. Bank v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64; Academy v. McKechnie, 90 NY. 618, 629; Jackson v. Campbell, 5 Wend. 572, 575; Dederick v. Agricultural Co., 26 F. 763; Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370; Ang. & A. Sec. 224. The complainant is entitled to a decree for an accounting. ...