Sunday, November 29, 2015

Russell v. Place case brief summary

Russell v. Place case brief
1876 

Want of Novelty – invention is not new and therefore not patentable 
Facts: Infringement of a patent case. Manufacture and sale of leather without a license of the patentee of the invention and improvement of leather is being sued for. Defense is that the want of novelty in the invention (?) its use by public for more than two years prior to application of patent and that it is not the same invention. Previous suit resulted in damages for plaintiff so they are now trying to use that judgment in their own favor. Defendant is trying to use want of novelty defense that the invention is not new and therefore was never patentable. 

Reasoning: The parties must show that the question must be the same and the parties are the same. If there is any uncertainty that the record show that this particular question was litigated, it should be relitigated. The first action does not disclose the nature of the infringement and thus cannot be used for issue preclusion in this suit. A recovery for an infringement of one claim of the patent is not conclusive of an infringement of the other claim and the first suit definitely had a suit for another claim and 0 evidence was offered otherwise. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.