Thayer v. Hart
Decision Date | 01 June 1884 |
Parties | THAYER v. HART, Jr., and others. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Josiah P. Fitch, for complainant.
Frederic H. Betts and C. Wyllys Betts, for defendants.
The complainant is the owner of letters patent No. 202,673, dated April 23, 1878, for an 'improvement in neck-tie shields.' The application was filed December 20, 1877. The defendants are owners of letters patent No. 220,610 dated October 14, 1879, for a similar invention. Their application was filed August 28, 1879. Both patents are designed to secure a pin formed with a shoulder, and so constructed that it may be conveniently and firmly attached to a neck-tie shield without using any device for the purpose of fastening except the pin itself. The only difference so far as the pin in question is concerned, irrespective of the method of attaching it, is, that in complainant's device the upper end of the pin is turned away from the point, and in defendant's it is turned towards the point. The principal controversy relates, therefore, to the question of prior invention. The complainant's patent antedating the defendants', it was incumbent upon them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that theirs was the prior invention. This they have done by proof so positive that the complainant's counsel conceded on the argument that the date of their invention was January 15, 1877; 11 months prior to the filing of the complainant's application. This date being fixed the burden was transferred to the complainant to satisfy the court by proof as convincing as that required of the defendant that his invention preceded theirs. The rule in such cases is very strict. It is so easy to fabricate or color evidence of prior invention and so difficult to contradict it, that proof has been required which does not admit of reasonable doubt. Where interests so vital are at stake, where intervening years have made perfect accuracy well nigh impossible, where an event, not deemed important at the time, has been crowded from the memory and obscured by the ever varying incidents of an active life, it is not difficult to imagine that even an honest man may be led erroneously to persuade himself that the fact accords with his inclination concerning it.
The evidence of prior invention is usually entirely within the control of the party asserting it, and so wide is the opportunity for deception, artifice, or mistake, that the authorities are almost unanimous in holding that it must be established by proof clear positive and unequivocal; nothing must be left to speculation or conjecture.
In Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, Mr. Justice SWAYNE says:
In Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 4 Ban. & A. 88, the court (at page 98) says:
'The burden of proof rests upon the defendants, to show, beyond a fair doubt, the prior knowledge and use set up; but, where they have sustained that burden by showing such knowledge and use prior to the patent, the burden of showing the still prior invention claimed, by at least a fair balance of proof, must rest upon the plaintiff.'
In Wood v. Cleveland Rolling-mill Co., 4 Fish. 550, the court, referring to the witnesses called to establish prior invention, says, at page 559:
In Howe v. Underwood, 1 Fish. 160, Judge SPRAGUE, at page 175, says:
Within the rule thus established the question to be answered here is: Has complainant satisfied the court beyond a reasonable doubt that he conceived his invention prior to January 15 1877? ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Shaughnessy
...4 Eng.Ecc. 33, 46. See also Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J.Eq. 56, 21 A. 627, 630; Rogers v. Rogers, 97 Md. 573, 55 A. 450, 456; Thayer v. Hart, 2 Cir., 20 F. 693; Hunter v. Wetsell, 84 N.Y. 549, 4h Moore, Facts (1898) §§ 93, 1146; Smith v. Davis, C.C., 34 F. 783, 784; cf. The William Gray, ......
-
Bryce Bros. Co. v. Seneca Glass Co.
...Steel Co., 117 F. 249, 54 C.C.A. 281. The latter cite, in support of the other doctrine, Young v. Wolfe (C.C.) 120 F. 956; Thayer v. Hart (C.C.) 20 F. 693; Mack v. (C.C.) 52 F. 819; Lalance Co. v. Habermann Co. (C.C.) 53 F. 375; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Schenck (C.C.) 68 F. 191; The Barbed Wire P......
-
Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co.
...... invalidate it, the proof must be of the. [148 F. 630] . same character. In the case of Thayer v. Hart, Jr. (C.C.) 20 F. 693, Judge Coxe said:. . . 'The. complainant's patent antedating the defendants', it. was incumbent upon ......
-
Fay v. Mason
...... and control of the party submitting it, the proof must be. clear, positive, and unequivocal. Thayer v. Hart. (C.C.) 20 F. 693; Wheaton v. Kendall (C.C.) 85. F. 666; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Consolidated Car-Heating. Co., 14 C.C.A. 232, 67 F. 121. ......