Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1906 |
| Docket Number | 237. |
| Citation | 145 F. 350 |
| Parties | VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. et al. v. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Rehearing Denied April 23, 1906.
Philip Mouro, for appellant.
Horace Pettitt, for appellees.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
In affirming this decree we do not find it necessary to add anything to the careful and exhaustive discussion of the issues which will be found found in Judge Hazel's opinion, with one single exception. In disposing of the defense of prior public use based upon the lecture and exhibition before the Franklin Institute, the Circuit Court apparently relied mainly upon the proposition that what took place there was not a public use, but rather an experimental one. Without discussing the questions thus raised, or expressing any definite opinion either way, we prefer to dispose of the alleged prior public use by means of the application of Berliner, which was filed six months prior to the Franklin Institute lecture, and which eventuated in patent 564,586, issued subsequent to the patent in suit. The specifications in that application for 564,586 were full enough to warrant the making of the claims here in controversy (5 and 35). At any time the application might have been amended by adding such claims, and in our opinion it is immaterial that, instead of thus amending it, he took the broader claims on another application, filed while the first was pending. The second may fairly be considered a continuation of the first, and thus Berliner's application antedates the public use, and the facts will not sustain the contention that he abandoned his invention here in suit.
The decree is affirmed.
Leave to Amend Decree and to Apply for Rehearing on New Testimony.
There is no reason why the mandate should be amended because of any existing contract or stipulation as to licensing defendant. The decree does not operate to abrogate or modify any such agreement. As to the further relief prayed for, the motion is denied, on the ground of laches.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galland-Henning Mfg. Co. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc.
...F. 824, 836 (D.N.J.1920); Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. A. Klipstein & Co., 125 F. 543 (S.D.N.Y.1903); Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone, 145 F. 350 (2d Cir. 1906). The continuing application was defined by the Commissioner of Patents in Ex parte Hall, 1920 C.D. 56, 277 ......
-
Diamond Power Specialty Corporation v. Bayer Co.
...Co. (C. C.) 69 F. 640; Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co., 131 F. 853, 68 C. C. A. 233; Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 145 F. 350, 76 C. C. A. 180; Proudfit Co. v. Kalamazoo Co., 230 F. 120, 144 C. C. A. 418; General Elec. Co. v. Continental Fibre Co.,......
-
Corrington v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.
... ... Eames, 1 Wall. 317, 17 L.ed. 684; Victor Talking ... Mach. Co. v. Am. G. Co., 145 F. 350, 76 ... ...
-
Western Electric Co. v. General Talking Pictures Corp.
...applications or amendments." Citing Hayes-Young Tie Plate Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co. (C.C. A.) 137 F. 80; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (C.C.A.) 145 F. 350; Corrington v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. (C.C.A.) 178 F. The citations seem to fortify the text. See, also, A......