Matthews v. Spangenberg
| Decision Date | 01 February 1883 |
| Parties | MATTHEWS v. SPANGENBERG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
A. v Briesen, for orator.
Philip Hathaway, for defendant.
This case has now been heard upon motion of the orator for an attachment against the defendant for an alleged violation of the injunction heretofore granted, restraining the defendant from infringing letters patent, reissued No. 9,028, granted to the orator, dated January 6, 1880, for a soda-water apparatus. On the papers it appears that the defendant was continued the use of an apparatus called the Gee Invincible apparatus, which was at the hearing in chief adjudged to be an infringement, except that he has not used the parts which draw syrup; and that he has paid to the orator this apparatus by the defendant. It is argued for the defendant that this payment has freed the use of this machine from the operation of the patent. The damages recovered by the orator are not for a sale for use, which would probably free the whole use nor for the use now complained of, which would probably be a satisfaction for that use and entitle the defendant to have it, but were for a prior use of the infringing device, and made satisfaction only for that use. The use complained of has not been paid for, and is not justified by the payment made for something else.
A part of the patent is for that part of the apparatus for containing and drawing the syrups; and a part for that part containing and drawing the waters. As the defendant has not since the injunction, used the former part, he has not infringed that part of the patent. The qualities of the liquids have nothing to do with working of either part. The syrups could any of them be contained and drawn in the parts for the waters, and the waters in the parts for syrups, as well as in the parts assigned to them in use, so far as the liquids themselves are concerned. The patent is not for storing and drawing particular liquids, but is for apparatus for storing and drawing liquids in particular modes.
As to that part of the patent which covered apparatus for the waters and was held to be valid, the defendant infringes it although he does not use the other part. The sixth claim of the patent is for a combination of parts. It would not be infringed but by use of that combination. The parts drawing syrups enter into the combination in the same way, and have there the same office that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Di Mauro
...in In re Eskay, 3 Cir., 1943, 122 F.2d 819, 822 n. 17, on which the defendant relies. The two cases there cited, Matthews v. Spangenberg, C.C. S.D.N.Y., 1883, 15 F. 813, and Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co., 6 Cir., 1915, 230 F. 120, each involved good faith relian......
-
McCann v. Randall
...superior court is proper. Thweatt v. Gammell, 56 Ga. 98; Stimpson v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 238; In re Chiles, 22 Wall. 168; Foth. 31; Matthews v. Spangenberg, 15 F. 813; Case, 114 Mass. 234; Pitt v. Davison, 37 N.Y. 235; People v. Kingsland, *42 N.Y. 325; Field v. Hunt, 22 How.Pr. 337; De Mannevil......
-
In re Eskay
...defense to an attachment for criminal, but not civil contempt that the contemnor acted in good faith upon advice of counsel. Matthews v. Spangenberg, C.C., 15 F. 813; Proudfit Loose-Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose-Leaf Binder Co., 6 Cir., 230 F. 120. 18 Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 3......
-
United States v. Morton
...is not a criminal contempt, even though actuated by a desire to find a lawful means [of] avoiding infringement."); Matthews v. Spangenberg, 15 F. 813, 814 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1883). Here, the advice, if given at all, was to disobey the court's order. 4. The prosecutor made the following statement......