Holliday v. Pickhardt

• Decision Date: 11 March 1882
• Citation: 12 F. 147
• Parties: HOLLIDAY and others v. PICKHARDT and another. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

12 F. 147

HOLLIDAY and others v. PICKHARDT and another. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

March 11, 1882

Dickerson & Dickerson, for plaintiffs.

George Gifford and J. Van Santvoord, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD C.J.

Professor Seeley testifies that he practiced the process set forth in No. 250,247, using the exact proportions and materials specified therein, and produced thereby a product, a sample of which is Exhibit B. He says that Exhibit A (the defendants' article) seems to him to be identical with B that he has tested them in various ways to determine their similarity; and that he is clearly of opinion that A is the product described in No. 250,247, and claimed in the first claim thereof. Professor Morton, for the defendants, does not say that A is not identical with B. What he says is that B is, manifestly, not the product obtained by following the directions of No. 250,247, and that he does not hesitate to say that B was not made by following said directions. Professor Chandler does not say that A is not identical with B. What he says is that he has examined B, and, from his knowledge and experience of the plaintiff's process, is convinced that B was not made by said process. Dr. Endemann does not say that A is not identical with B. What he says is that he has found that B is a product which could not be produced by following the directions of No. 250,247. There is, therefore, no dispute as to the identity of A with B. The contention of the defendants is merely that B cannot be produced by following the directions in No. 250,247. Their experts do not exhibit any article which they say they produced by following the directions in No. 250,247, nor do they give any analysis of B.

In the interference before the patent-office, Professors Morton and Chandler testified that they had followed the directions given in Holliday's specification, and had been unable to produce what he claimed those directions would produce. The patent-office then directed Holliday to satisfy it that he could obtain the product claimed by the process described in his specification. The report of the examiner shows that in his presence Holliday, by following the directions of the specification and using fuming sulphuric acid, tested by Beaume's hydrometer, at over 69 deg., and almost exactly 70 deg., produced a true sulpho-conjugate acid salt of rosaniline, capable of being dyed in a hot acid bath and...