Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1895 |
| Docket Number | 6,130. |
| Citation | 71 F. 886 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
| Parties | THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO. v. ELMIRA & H. RY. CO. |
Samuel A. Duncan and Frederic H. Betts, for complainant.
Wm. A. Jenner and Thomas B. Kerr, for defendant.
As to costs. Four of the claims were withdrawn at the argument on intimation by the court that the question of invention as to them was exceedingly doubtful. The court decided, as to three others, that the defendant did not infringe. Fourteen claims are not included in the decree, presumably for the reason, as to some of them at least, that they are thought to be for the same invention as those which are included. The defendant has been put to the trouble and expense of defending all of these claims, those withdrawn and not infringed equally with the others. In these circumstances the rule in this circuit is well settled that the complainant is not entitled to costs. Adams v. Howard, 22 Blatchf. 47, 19 F. 317; Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 21 F. 566; Yale & G. Manuf'g Co. v. North, 5 Blatchf. 455, Fed. Cas. No. 18,123; Steam Trap Co. v. Felthousen, 20 F. 633; Tyler v. Galloway, 20 Blatchf. 445, 12 F. 567; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Electric Engineering & Supply Co., 60 F. 401; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 F. 117; Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf'g Co. v. Eames Vacuum Brake Co., 44 F. 64; Ballard v. McCluskey, 58 F. 880.
The question of costs having been determined in favor of the defendant, the court can see no reason for entering upon a discussion and analysis of the claims not included in the decree. Cui bono? The course adopted by the complainant in withdrawing these claims has frequently been pursued in other cases in this circuit. It is thought that this practice should be encouraged in this cause particularly. As the decree now stands the air is cleared and the issue very much simplified by the withdrawal of these claims. The court and counsel are relieved from a tedious and inconsequential investigation which in no event could place the defendant in any better position than it now is. The complainant does not recover costs and the defendant is relieved from all liability on account of the withdrawn claims as fully as if they were declared invalid by the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ide v. Trorlicht, Duncker & Renard Carpet Co.
... ... Harker, 62 F. 389, ... 391, 10 C.C.A. 435, 438, 27 U.S.App. 122, 150; Adams ... Electric Co. v. Lindell Ry. Co., 77 F. 432, 440, 23 ... C.C.A. 223, 231, 40 U.S.App. 482, 498). The ... Co. v. Merrow Mach ... Co., 93 F. 206, 35 C.C.A. 269; Thomson-Houston ... Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 71 F. 886; ... Albany Steam Trap Co. v ... ...
-
J.L. Owens Co. v. Twin City Separator Co.
... ... Gibbs Sewing Machine Co. v. Merrow Machine Co., 35 ... C.C.A. 269, 93 F. 206; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v ... Elmira & H. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 71 F. 886; Johnson v ... Foos Mfg. Co., 141 F ... ...
-
Barber v. Reo Motor Car Sales Co.
... ... expedient not infrequently resorted to in patent litigation ... In Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co ... (C.C.) 71 F. 886, Judge Coxe distinctly approved such ... ...
-
Judelson v. Hill Laundry Equipment Co.
...with costs." As claims No. 3 and No. 4 were properly sustained, the error charged is not substantiated. See Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Elmira & H. Ry. Co., 71 F. 886 (C. C. N. Y.). The decree must be affirmed, with costs in this court to the ...