Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan case brief summary
74 US (7 Wall.) 583 (1868)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner individual sought review of a judgment for respondent patent owner for infringement of a reissued patent for a yarn carding machine on the ground, among others, that an employee of the original patent owner invented the machine.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent patent owner, holding that respondent corporation infringed a patent for a yarn carding machine because respondent alleged that the patentee fraudulently obtained the patent knowing that it was invented by another, but failed to allege that the first inventor was using reasonable diligence to adapt and perfect the invention, and failed to prove prior invention.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
74 US (7 Wall.) 583 (1868)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner individual sought review of
a judgment from the Circuit Court for Massachusetts in favor of
respondent patent owner for infringement of a reissued patent for a
yarn carding machine on the ground, among others, that an employee of
the original patent owner invented the machine.CASE FACTS
Petitioner individual sought review of a judgment for respondent patent owner for infringement of a reissued patent for a yarn carding machine on the ground, among others, that an employee of the original patent owner invented the machine.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the order, holding that petitioner failed to allege in its answer not only that the patentee fraudulently obtained the patent, knowing that it was invented by another, but that the first inventor was using reasonable diligence to adapt and perfect the invention.
- The court also held that petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of validity raised by the issuance of the letters, and the rule that where an employer discovered an improved principle in a machine, and an employee in assisting him made ancillary discoveries that were incorporated into the invention, his suggested improvements were regarded as the property of the inventor.
- Petitioner failed to show that the employee furnished information to the patentee that "embraced the plan of improvement" and would have enabled an ordinary mechanic to construct and put the improvement into successful operation.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent patent owner, holding that respondent corporation infringed a patent for a yarn carding machine because respondent alleged that the patentee fraudulently obtained the patent knowing that it was invented by another, but failed to allege that the first inventor was using reasonable diligence to adapt and perfect the invention, and failed to prove prior invention.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment