De Laval Separator Co. v. Vermont Farm Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1904
• Citation: 135 F. 772
• Parties: DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO. v. VERMONT FARM MACH. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

135 F. 772

DE LAVAL SEPARATOR CO. v. VERMONT FARM MACH. CO.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 25, 1904

Geo. J Harding, for appellant.

Geo. L Roberts, for appellee.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint in an action to restrain infringement of the patent of Jules Melotte and Wilhelm Reuther for improvements in 'centrifugal creamers' granted June 19, 1894, upon an application filed by them August 24, 1893. The principal defenses urged in the court below and in this court were (1) that Melotte and Reuther were not the joint inventors, and the subject-matters of the claims were invented by Melotte alone; and (2) that the inventions of the claims had been patented by Jules Melotte in patents granted to him in Belgium February 29, 1892, in Germany March 13, 1892, in France August 1, 1892, and in England August 12, 1892. The court below adjudged the patent invalid upon the ground that the defense that Melotte and Reuther were not the joint inventors was satisfactory established. With this conclusion we are constrained to agree, though we do so with regret because the defense is purely technical, and destroys a meritorious patent, purchased by the complainant in ignorance of its infirmity, and at a very considerable price. Upon strict considerations the second defense may be said to be more incontestably established than the first, because there is no evidence in the record tending to show that the subject-matter of the foreign patents granted to Melotte alone was actually the invention of Melotte and Reuther; and in the absence of such evidence, as those patents are antecedent in date to the application for the present patent, and are not granted to the same persons, and clearly described the inventions described and claimed in the present patent, the defense that they anticipate the present patent must necessarily prevail. Upon those patents being proved by the defendant, the burden of proof was cast upon the complainant to show that Melotte and Reuther were earlier inventors. But the first defense, to our minds, is indubitably proved, and any consideration of the second is consequently unnecessary.

Giving due weight to the presumption of validity which arise from the grant of the patent, the convincing force of the proof that Melotte was the sole inventor cannot be disregarded notwithstanding the proof consists of his own testimony and the corroboration which its...