MONOPOLIES. II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINA- TRADE. IV. ACTIONS. (C) Trial, Judgment, and Review. 136(9) (U.S.C.C.A.) When facts as to defendant's negligence are such that but one con 17(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) At least subject to lim-clusion can be drawn by reasonable men, the itations, a system of contracts between manucourt should instruct a verdict; but when reafacturer and dealers in connection with ab- the question is for the jury.-Pennsylvania R. sonable men may draw different conclusions, solute sales of its product, attempting to con- Co. v. Rogers, 504. trol resale price, is a restraint on trade, invalid at common law and under the Sherman136 (26) (U.S.C.C.A.) The question of conAnti-Trust Act.-Ford Motor Co. v. Union Mo- tributory negligence is usually for the jury.tor Sales Co., 584. Missouri Dist. Telegraph Co. v. Morris & Co., 179. MORTGAGES. See Chattel Mortgages; Corporations, 476, to deceased's contributory negligence, the court 4822; Receivers, 158. 136(26) (U.S.C.C.A.) When reasonable men may draw but one conclusion from the facts as should direct a verdict; but when there is a conflict, warranting different conclusions, the question is for the jury.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rogers, 504. NEW TRIAL. See Appeal and Error, 977. (E) Irregularities or Defects in Verdict ing jury to correct technical irregularity in sealed 64 (U.S.C.C.A.) Error, if any, in reimpanelverdict, held a mere formality, not furnishing ground for a new trial.-Kawin & Co. v. American Colortype Co., 97. NOTICE. See Adverse Possession, 31; Chattel Mortgages, 148, 155. OBJECTIONS. 723 (U.S.C.C.A.) Suit in admiralty may be maintained against municipal corporation for tort, if cause of action is stated under maritime law, although same acts of its servants would not constitute cause of action under local state See Trial, ~82. law.-City of Chicago v. White Transp. Co., 138. (E) Condition or Use of Public Buildings and Other Property. 853 (U.S.C.C.A.) A city held liable in admiralty for the sinking of a steamer through the negligence of firemen operating from a fireboat. -City of Chicago v. White Transp. Co., 138. NAMES. See Trade-Marks and Trade-Names. NARCOTICS. See Conspiracy. 43, 45; Criminal Law, 507, 564, 678; Poisons. NATIONAL BANKS. See Banks and Banking, 242-262. NEGLIGENCE. See Carriers, 280-347; Collision; Master and Servant, 131-289; Municipal Corporations; Pilots; Railroads, 324-359; Shipping, 84, 141; Towage, 11, 15. PASSENGERS. See Carriers, 247-347. PATENTS. See Contracts, 68, 116; Courts, II. PATENTABILITY. (A) Invention. ence and use upon oral testimony, the proof must be clear, satisfactory, and beyond reasonable doubt.-Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co., 153. Where the existence of an anticipating ma290; for the patentee to carry the date of his inchine is shown with certainty, it is necessary vention back to a prior date by convincing proofs, and also to show reasonable diligence in reduction to practice.-Id. (E) Prior Public Use or Sale. 16 (U.S.C.C.A.) That a patentee does not understand his own mechanism will not invali-78 (U.S.C.C.A.) That a divisional applicadate the patent, if it is described and produces a new result.-Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co., 258. tion for a process was not filed until more than two years after a public use will not invalidate the patent issued thereon, where until the division the same claims were pending in the original application.-Aurora Mantle & Lamp Co. v. Kaufmann, 423. 28 (U.S.C.C.A.) To give validity to a design patent, there must be originality, and the exercise of the inventive faculty, and the design shown must also be pleasing and attractive to the eye.-R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Stark-82 (U.S.C.C.A.) The acquiescence by the weather Co., 290. It is immaterial that the subject of a design patent may embody a mechanical function, provided the design per se is pleasing, attractive, novel, useful, and the result of invention.-Id. 32 (U.S.C.C.A.) The printed date of the filing of the application as shown on the officially printed copy of the patent will be accepted as correct in the absence of objection.-Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co., 171. 36 (U.S.C.C.A.) The transformation of a laboratory experiment into a successful and useful mechanical device is evidence of invention.-Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co., 258. (C) Utility. 47 (U.S.C.C.A.) Term "useful," as used in patent law, when applied to machine, means that machine will accomplish its purpose practically when applied in industry.-Besser v. Merrilat Culvert Core Co., 309. (D) Anticipation. 51(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A patent is void for anticipation if the patented machine or its equivalent was known and used in this country by a single person prior to its invention or discovery by the patentee.-Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co., 153. 59 (U.S.C.C.A.) A defendant has the same right to show the time of conception of an unpatented anticipating device and diligence in reducing it to practice, as complainant has to do the same in respect to the patented device.Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co., 153. (F) Abandonment. applicant for a patent in the citation against 90(5) (U.S.C.C.A.) Diligence is of the essence of a proper relation between the conception and reduction to practice of an invention, and must consist of a degree of effort that can fairly be characterized as substantially one continuous act.-Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co., 153. IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEED- 97 (U.S.C.C.A.) Rules established by the Commissioner of Patents, pursuant to Rev. St. § 483 (Comp. St. 1916, § 745), if not inconsistent with law, have the force of statute.-Westinghouse Traction Brake Co. v. Christensen, 413. 99 (U.S.C.C.A.) Claims for a new product are not sustainable, unless the specification discloses at least one practicable way of making it.Hemming Mfg. Co. v. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co., 293. 112(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Issue of later patent lier, and usually does not even tend to establish raises no presumption of noninfringement of cartric Controller & Mfg. Co., 54. that conclusion.-General Electric Co. v. Elec V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT. 61 (U.S.C.C.A.) A patent the application 129 (U.S.C.C.A.) A condition of a sales for which was filed prior to that for the patent agency contract that the agent shall recognize in suit is prima facie a part of the prior art, and respect all rights of the patentee under the and may be considered in the limitations it im- patent ceases to be effective when the contract poses on the scope of the patent in suit.-Jack-is terminated, and in a subsequent suit the agent son Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler, 166. may contest the validity of the patent.-K-W 62 (U.S.C.C.A.) As respects an anticipated Ignition Co. v. Temco Electric Motor Co., 286. device, claimed to be a complete anticipation of 129 (U.S.C.C.A.) In a suit upon a patent lia patent in suit and depending as to its exist-cense contract, the prior art is not admissible, For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER either to show the invalidity of the patent or to limit the prima facie scope of the claims, further than to make clear any ambiguities therein. -Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Pressed Steel Car Co., 395. VII. REISSUES. 136 (U.S.C.C.A.) Failure of patentee to apply for claims sufficiently broad to cover his invention, in the absence of any fraudulent intention, is inadvertence or mistake, which will authorize reissue.-Robert v. Krementz, 389. 142 (U.S.C.C.A.) Acquiescence by patentee in rejection of claims, which are for but part of his invention, does not estop him from obtaining by reissue claims for another and different part.-Robert v. Krementz, 389. 147 (U.S.C.C.A.) Patent issued to correct mistake in prior patent, but not designated as reissue and purporting to run full term from its date, held issued without authority and invalid. -Westinghouse Traction Brake Co. v. Christensen, 413. VIII. DISCLAIMERS. 155 (U.S.C.C.A.) A disclaimer is valid which only abandons something claimed in the patent, but not needed, without broadening or enlarging any claim, and leaving the claims fully supported by the original specification.— Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co., 258. IX. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LETTERS PATENT. (B) Limitation of Claims. Where competitors in manufacture and sale of paint removers formed corporation, agreement by all of them to assign future improvements or inventions to the corporation held not invalid.Id. Where organizers of corporation agreed to assign future inventions or improvements to it, payment of retainer or salary to one party to conduct experiments held not to annul the agreement or to release another of the parties.-Id. (C) Licenses and Contracts. agreement 209(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A written by a corporation to grant a license under a patent held valid and binding and to entitle the other party to a specific performance.-Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Mach. Co., 298. 2113) (U.S.C.C.A.) Estoppel by a patent license does not depend on user of the device licensed by the licensee.-Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Pressed Steel Car Co., 395. 216 (U.S.C.C.A.) The dominant character of the dealing being a sale by manufacturer to dealers of patented articles, with attempt to provide and enforce resale prices, reservation of title being only till price is paid, the sale is absolute, rather than conditional.-Ford Motor Co. v. Union Motor Sales Co., 584. Patent gives patentee no right to dictate resale prices of patented articles absolutely sold by him, and so no right to restrain sale by a third person at less than prices attempted to be fixed by patentee, though such person buys at less than such price from the purchaser from patentee with knowledge of their contract as to resale price.-Id. XII. INFRINGEMENT. (A) What Constitutes Infringement. 165 (U.S.C.C.A.) When an inventor has pointed out and claimed in his patent the combination or improvement he claims as his invention, he disclaims and dedicates to the public 230 (U.S.C.C.A.) "Equivalency" in the patany other combination or improvement apparent law is not necessarily mutual, and whether ent from his specification and claims, not a mere device of defendant is equivalent of that of comevasion of his own.-Whitney v. New York Scaf- plainant's patent depends upon scope of claim in folding Co., 46. suit.-General Electric Co. v. Electric Controller & Mfg. Co., 54. 167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) Claims of patent are to be construed in light of real invention as shown and described in drawings and specification.Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., 373. Claims of patent can be no broader than actual invention disclosed by drawings and specifica tion.-Id. 237 (U.S.C.C.A.) The term "mechanical equivalent," when applied to the interpretation of a pioneer patent, has a broad and generous and limited when it conditions the construction signification, while its meaning is very narrow of a patent for a slight improvement.-Whitney v. New York Scaffolding Co., 46. 168(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) The cancellation of process claims in an application held pot to invali-259 (U.S.C.C.A.) The question in contribudate a patent for the process issued on a divisional application.-Aurora Mantle & Lamp Co. v. Kaufmann, 423. 175 (U.S.C.C.A.) The patentee of a process is not necessarily restricted to the order in which the steps are named in the patent.--Aurora Mantle & Lamp Co. v. Kaufmann, 423. X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONTRACTS. tory infringement is whether or not the dement with the intent or purpose of aiding anfendant made or sold his machine or improveother in the unlawful making, selling, or using of a third person's patented invention.-Whitney v. New York Scaffolding Co., 46. (C) Suits in Equity. 283(1) (U.S.C.C.A.) A patent the application for which antedates that for the patent in suit is a part of the prior art, and, if anticipa (A) Rights of Patentees in General. tory, may be shown in defense of a suit for in183 (U.S.C.C.A.) Agreement for assign-fringement, under subdivision 4, § 4920, Rev. ment of all future improvements or inventions St. (Comp. St. 1916, § 9466[4]).-Lemley v. Dobcovering paint removers, held sufficient in form. son-Evans Co., 171. -Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. H. B. Chalmers Co., 312(2) (U.S.C.C.A.) Theories phenomena observed in wireless 304. concerning telegraphy, 290 841,386. which are not the same as were held by the wit-824,637. Detector for wireless telegraph apnesses a short time before, and which they admit paratus, held not infringed.... 258 are only theories, are not legal evidence.-Mar-836,070. Detector for wireless telegraph apconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co., 258. 313 (U.S.C.C.A.) Court has power to dismiss bill for infringement on motion, on ground that patent is void for lack of invention shown on its face.-American Safety Device Co. v. Liebel-Binney Const. Co., 273. 321 (U.S.C.C.A.) In connection with an accounting under an interlocutory decree in an infringement suit, the court held to have discretionary power to consider and adjudicate upon a modified structure presented by defendant. Kalamazoo Loose-Leaf Binder Co. v. Proudfit Loose-Leaf Co., 407. 864,951. 867,876. 867,877. 867,878. 869,321. 880,410. 258 281 paratus, held not infringed..... 258 Detector for wireless telegraph apparatus, held void.. Machine for nailing shoe soles, claim 4, held void.. Detector for wireless telegraph apparatus, held not infringed... 258 Detector for wireless telegraph apparatus, held not infringed.... Detector for wireless telegraph apparatus, held not infringed.. 258 Insulating material and process of making same, held not infringed Combined carton and display de vice, claim 1, held void... Cover for automobile radiators, held void.. 921,837. Ice cream freezer, claim 2, injunction against infringement reversed 327 (U.S.C.C.A.) A Circuit Court of Appeals, even after the term at which it has de- 901,616. termined an appeal from an interlocutory decree in an infringement suit, on request of the District Court, may permit such court to open the decree and take further testimony.-Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co., 591. XIII. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND INFRINGEMENT OF PARTICULAR PATENTS. 328. UNITED STATES. DESIGN. 42,488. Lantern, held void... 933,834. 258 293 67 604 613 Edge-grip tire setter, held not anticipated and valid, and claims 2, 3 and 5, held infringed..... 940,639. Gas mantle, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed... 265 423 600 373 960,528. Improved mechanism for adding machines, construed, and held valid, but not infringed.. 62 962,114. Tubular lantern, held void. 962,135. Tubular lantern, held void. 418 672,175. Concrete and steel construction, 373 290 290 1,114,832. 762,521. Improved mechanism for adding 1,120,596. machines, construed, and held 975,769. Process of making gas mantles, 423 66 286 46 763,274. Scaffold, held void... 373 REISSUED. 763,658. Controller for electric motors; 12,290. Match box, held valid and infringed 389 54 claim 7, held not anticipated, 764,608. Electromagnet, held not infringed 591 machines, construed, and held valid, but not infringed....... 373 781,127. Car coupler, held not infringed.. 602 791,348. Car door mechanism, claim 13, held infringed.... 803,684. Detector for wireless telegraph op 395 PAYMENT. See Compromise and Settlement; Receivers, 158. PENALTIES. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS, AND EX- of a class for erator, held valid and infringed 2588 (U.S.C.C.A.) Any one 819,461. Loose-leaf binder, held void...... 171 whose special benefit a penal statute is enacted For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER no 25 (U.S.C.C.A.) Agreement by corporation assuming debts of another corporation that bonds deposited as collateral should be returned to party lending them to the corporation held not to affect the pledgee's rights.-Church v. Swetland, 69. Rights of pledgee of bonds as collateral security held not affected by agreement of one assuming the pledgor's debts that the bond should be returned to plaintiff, who loaned them to the pledgor, though it knew thereof.-Id. 38 (U.S.C.C.A.) One to whom the holder of notes secured by collateral assigned the notes and the collateral acquired the same rights in all respects as those which the original holder possessed.-Church v. Swetland, 69. Knowledge of transferee of notes secured by collateral concerning agreement between the pledgor and a third party as to the collateral held not to affect his rights in the collateral. -Id. POISONS. See Conspiracy, 43, 45; Criminal Law, 507, 564, 678. 4 (U.S.C.C.A.) Harrison Drug Act, § 1a, does not provide that one intending to deal in drugs shall register at his place of business, but that he shall register at place where business is to be carried on.-Wallace v. United States, 80. One merely having possession of opium or derivatives of coca leaves for his own use is not a violator of Harrison Drug Act, §§ 1, 8.-Id. 9 (U.S.C.C.A.) An indictment charging a violation of Harrison Drug Act need not negative exemptions contained therein. provisions of section 8 being applicable to all exemptions contained in act.-Wallace v. United States. 80. In a prosecution for violating the Harrison Drug Act, evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction.-Id. POSSESSION. 173 (U.S.C.C.A.) Replication which set up new matter by way of inducement, but See Adverse Possession. merely matter constituting an admission of the matters of inducement alleged in the plea, held to properly conclude to the country.-Kawin & Co. v. American Colortype Co., 97. V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION. 204 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.) Demurrer to complaint in suit by assignee for want of jurisdiction held properly overruled because the demurrer was general and the complaint stated a cause of action as to part of the amount sued for.-Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. Southern Oregon Co., 511, 518. POST OFFICE. See Conspiracy, 43; Criminal Law. II. MAILABLE MATTER, TRANSMIS SION AND DELIVERY OF MAIL, AND MONEY ORDERS. 21(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) Where P. Company, running trains over tracks of W. Company, carried mails included in W. Company's contract and for which it was paid, held, that there was an implied contract to pay the P. Company therefor.-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Wabash R. Co., 494. 19 (U.S.C.C.A.) Renewal of note secured by Contract by railroad, having mail-carrying pledge held not to affect the pledge in the ab- contract, to pay another, which did the carrysence of a distinct agreement.-Church v. Swet-ing, held to be implied, notwithstanding the rule land, 69. Renewal of notes of corporation by new corporation taking over the assets, debts, and contracts of the old corporation, held not to release collateral security for the notes.-Id. that a contract may not be implied against one having no opportunity to elect.-Id. Where railroad, having mail-carrying contract, recognized liability to another railroad, doing the carrying, to compensate it for use and |