Schneider v. Missouri Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1888
• Citation: 36 F. 582
• Parties: SCHNEIDER v. MISSOURI GLASS CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

36 F. 582

SCHNEIDER v. MISSOURI GLASS CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

October 31, 1888

Gifford & Brown, for complainant.

Ed Cunningham, Jr., and Fowler & Fowler, for defendants.

THAYER J.

Since the first reissued patent of Carl Votti was held void by Judges BENEDICT and BLATCHFORD for want of a sufficient description of the invention, in Schneider v. Thill, 5 Ban. & A. 565, and Schneider v. Lovell, 10 F 666, a second reissue has been obtained, which was sustained on final hearing in the case of Schneider v Pountney, 21 F. 399, (U.S. Circuit Court, District of New Jersey, decided August 30, 1884.) In the last-mentioned case the second reissue was assailed on the following grounds: (1) That the specifications were still defective in the respect pointed out by Judges BENEDICT and BLATCHFORD (2) that the invention had been anticipated; (3) that there was lack of patentable novelty; and (4) that the claims had been altered in the reissue so as to cover a different invention than that claimed and covered by the original patent. As a fifth defense defendants also asserted that they had not infringed, for that they had only sold one element of the combination covered by the patent. It is true that the court in its decision only mentions the first and last of the above-mentioned defenses, but, considering the elaborate arguments made in support of and against the other defenses it must be presumed that they were also considered, and that they were not referred to in the decision because, in the opinion of the court, they involved questions of less doubt and difficulty. It also appears from the moving papers that interlocutory injunctions have been granted on this reissue by several other circuit courts of the United States, after the service of orders, to show cause why such injunctions should not issue; and that a large number of dealers throughout the country have acquiesced for several years in the validity of the reissued letters. The utility of the invention is inferentially established by the large sales that have been made, and by the large demand that appears to have arisen for the patented article. The defendant is shown to be engaged in the jobbing trade, and, as it is said, has recently imported lamp 'shade-holders' which infringe complainant's patent. The sale of the same to retail dealers in various places may entail much expensive litigation,...