Richards v. Meissner

• Decision Date: 04 May 1908
• Docket Number: 2,954.
• Parties: RICHARDS et al. v. MEISSNER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

162 F. 485

RICHARDS et al. v. MEISSNER et al.

No. 2,954.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri.

May 4, 1908

E Hayward Fairbanks and Gage, Ladd & Small, for complainants.

Samuel E. Hibben and Frank Hagerman, for defendants.

SMITH McPHERSON, District Judge.

The motion of defendants to strike from the files certain evidence will be sustained, part of it because taken at a time beyond that fixed by the court. But the important question is with reference to evidence not covered by an issue presented by the pleadings. The bill of complaint is filed under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp St. 1901, p. 3392). It appears from the bill that the parties had a long drawn-out and a vigorously contested hearing before the Commissioner of Patents as to who should have the patent. It was awarded to defendants. Thereupon complainants appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and there it was decreed that defendants should have the patent. Not only have the facts been passed on by the Commissioner of Patents, which findings of fact according to a long line of authorities are conclusive and at an end but the facts and law have been passed upon by a court having jurisdiction. Both parties have had their day in a court having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter and ordinarily such would and should be the end of litigation. But that question is not now presented for decision. And whether the defeated party has a remedy by appeal to the courts, and likewise a remedy by a bill in equity, is a question only to be passed. Judge Philips in this case held that the complainants were not, after their defeats above noted, entitled to a writ of injunction, and vacated an order for a restraining order theretofore made by another judge. 158 F. 109.

In taking some of the testimony now sought to be stricken out, Judge Trieber held ((C.C.) 155 F. 135) that such testimony should be taken to the end that defendant's patent may or may not be made to appear as void for anticipation. I am unable to agree with his conclusion.

For some reason which can only be surmised, but stated to be for the reason that it will avail complainants in an action in the United States courts in the Northern District of Ohio complainants now in effect ask this court to decree that neither complainants nor defendants are entitled to a patent. But this court is neither seeking to control or thwart...