National Automatic Device Co. v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 23 September 1889 |
| Parties | NATIONAL AUTOMATIC DEVICE CO. v. LLOYD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Selden Fish and Banning, Banning & Payson, for complainant.
W. C Hoyer, H. D. Paul, B. M. Shaffner, and George Burry, for defendants.
Complainant moves for an injunction pendente lite in this case. The bill charges the infringement of patent No. 410,981, granted to Fred N. Lang, on the 10th day of September, 1889, for a 'Toy Automatic Race-Course,' and contains the usual prayer for an injunction and accounting. The device covered by the patent is a shaft projecting upwards from the center of the base of a circular shell or case, from 15 to 18 inches in diameter, to which shaft a clock-work mechanism is so geared that it can be made to revolve rapidly be releasing the escapement of the clock-work. On this shaft are mounted two or more radial arms, to the ends of which are attached small toy figures of horses. These radial arms are attached to the shaft by separate collars so loose that they turn easily on the shaft. The clockwork escapement is released by dropping a nickel coin through a slot in the machine whereupon the shaft commences to revolve rapidly, carrying the radial arms with it, but, after a certain number of revolutions, the force of the clock-work is cut-off, and the radial arms continue to revolve, from the momentum they have obtained while the clockwork was going, until such arms finally stop from friction and the resistance of the air. Several objections are urged against the motion for an injunction, such as that the bill is multifarious non-infringement, etc., which I do not deem it necessary to consider, as it seems to me there is sufficient reason on another ground for withholding the injunction. The proof shows that the only use to which complainant's, or, for that matter, the defendants', machines have been so far applied, is to place them in saloons, bar-rooms, and other drinking places, where the frequenters of such places make wagers as to which of the toy horses will stop first, or which will stop nearest to a designated point, after the machine has been put in motion by dropping a nickel in the slot; in other words, the machine in question is only used for gambling purposes. The law of the United States only authorizes the issue of a patent for a new and useful invention, and in an early case on that subject (Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mason, 302)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolfree v. Wetzler
...It may be useful, but capable only of a use considered harmful to the body politic, viz. gambling (National Automatic Device Co. v. Lloyd C. C. N. D. Ill. 40 F. 89, 5 L. R. A. 784), or counterfeiting (Rickard v. Du Bon C. C. A. 2d 103 F. 868). On the other hand, it may be actually useless, ......
-
Fuller v. Berger
... ... and use the device. No one else used it by authority ... Appellees, without license, ... Co. v. Lloyd (C.C.) 40 F. 89, 5 L.R.A. 784; Novelty ... Co. v. Dworzek (C.C.) 80 F ... extract from the last cited case, quoted in Bement v ... National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 90, 22 Sup.Ct. 747, 46 ... L.Ed. 1058, will ... ...
-
Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang
...see e.g., Brewer v. Lichtenstein, 278 F. 512 (7th Cir. 1922); Schultze v. Holtz, 82 F. 448 (N.D. Cal. 1897); National Automatic Device Co. v. Lloyd, 40 F. 89 (N.D. Ill. 1889), but that is no longer the law, see In re Murphy, 200 USPQ 801 (PTO Bd. App. In holding the patent in this case inva......
-
Egbert v. Greenberg
... ... the machine in question ... [100 F. 450.] ... was a gambling device, and cited in connection with this ... decision the case of Device Co. v. Lloyd (C.C.) 40 ... F. 89, L.R.A. 784. In the course of the opinion in this ... photographs, kinetoscope pictures, automatic toys, and ... views of celebrated places and persons. But its own ... ...
-
The Patent Office meets the poison pill: why legal methods cannot be patented.
...a patent on a "coin-controlled apparatus" used only "for gambling purposes in saloons [and] barrooms"); Nat'l Automatic Device Co. v. Lloyd, 40 F. 89, 89-90 (N.D. Ill. 1889) (invalidating patent for toy horse racing game because "the only use to which [the games have] been so far applied, i......