Hanlon v. Primrose

Decision Date25 May 1893
Citation56 F. 600
PartiesHANLON v. PRIMROSE et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Emile Schultze, Jr., for complainant.

W. C Hauff, for defendants.

TOWNSEND District Judge.

This is a bill in equity for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 263,900, granted to complainant September 5, 1882 for theatrical scenery and appliances. Defendants demur to the bill of complainant on the ground that the patent is void for want of patentable novelty, and is a claim for a mere aggregation. That these questions may properly be raised and disposed of on demurrer, where the patent is invalid on its face, is well settled. Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 44; Blessing v. Copper Works, 34 F. 753; Fougeres v Murbarger, 44 F. 292; Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne Bottle & Seal Co., 47 F. 59. But the numerous decisions to this effect also show that the court will only sustain such a demurrer where the case is entirely free from doubt, and it will only take judicial notice of matters within the field of common knowledge. Manufacturing Co v. Adkins, 36 F. 554. 'A demurrer for such cause can only be sustained where the court can adjudge the device described and claimed in the letters patent to be without patentable novelty, without the least scintilla of evidence.' Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne Bottle & Seal Co., supra. 'In almost all cases the nature of the subject demands that the triers should be instructed by the testimony of those skilled in the art to which the patent relates, and therefore a demurrer for nonpatentability apparent upon the face of the instrument should not ordinarily be allowed.' Blessing v. Copper Works, supra.

The patent in suit is for certain mechanical devices for producing various stage effects. Such a device may be the proper subject of a patent. Burgess v. Chapman, 44 F. 427. It consists of a stationary frame, representing a ship on rockers, so arranged, in combination with sliding wings, curtains, and other contrivances, as to present the illusion to the audience of a ship moving out of a dock into rough water, and putting to sea. It is true that scenic effects, whereby stationary objects appear to move upon the stage, are not new. But it is not matter of common knowledge that the combination claimed in this patent has been used to produce a complete series of stage effects, such as are claimed under this patent; and it does not appear, upon the face of the patent, that such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Dickey v. Volker
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1928
    ... ... Shearer, 50 Miss. 113; Hamilton v ... Lockhart, 41 Miss. 460; Smith v. Loomis, 5 ... N.J.Eq. 60; Day v. Cole, 56 Mich. 294; Hanlon v ... Primrose, 56 F. 600; Standard Oil v. Southern Pac ... Co., 42 F. 295; Stevens v. Railroad, 5 Dill ... 486; Bloomstein v. Clees, 3 ... ...
  • I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1920
    ... ... v. De La Vergne Bottle & Seal Co., ... 47 F. 59; 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 v ... Development Inst., 47 F. 899; ... ...
  • American Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 10, 1896
    ... ... v. De La Vergne Bottle & Seal ... Co., 47 F. 59; 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 v ... Development Inst., 47 F. 899; Krick v ... ...
  • Southern Plow Co. v. Atlanta Agricultural Works
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • November 30, 1908
    ... ... v. Copper Works (C.C.) 34 F. 759; Industries Co. v ... Grace (C.C.) 52 F. 124; Goebel v. Supply Co ... (C.C.) 55 F. 825; Hanlon v. Primrose (C.C.) 56 ... F. 600; Dick v. Supply Co. (C.C.) 25 F. 105; ... Kaolatype Co. v. Hoke (C.C.) 30 F. 444; Coop v ... Development Inst ... ...
  • 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