Case ID: f_280/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CORDLEY v. RICHARDSON CORPORATION.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 6, 1922.)
    No. 213.
    Patents <§=>328 — 1,054,677, for water cooler, held void for lack of invention.
    The Cordley patent, No. 1,054,677, for improvements in cooler for liquids, held void for lack of invention.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Westerñ District of New York.
    Suit in equity by Henry G. Cordley against the Richardson Corporation. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Dor opinion below, see 278 Ded. 683.
    W. K. Richardson, Harrison D. Hyman, and Hector M. Holmes, all of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
    Duell, Warfield & Duell, of New York City (F. P. Warfield, II. S. Duell, and H. A. Watson, all of New York City, of counsel), for ap-pellee.
    Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Hazel, J., who heard the case below, and think litigation over this patent a rather striking instance of an endeavor to put novelty and commercial success in the place of invention, a point we have recently commented on in Boston, etc., Co. v. Automatic, etc., Co., 276 Fed. 910.

It is quite true that, in deciding the point of invention, which is always a question of fact, courts should “view the subject-matter from the standpoint of the art concerned.” Kurtz v. Blatt (D. C.) 263 Fed. 392. But it is this view that is fatal to plaintiff’s contention, for the patent teaches the art nothing; it only rearranges old matter in a form probably attractive to the eye and useful for purposes of display.

Decree affirmed, with costs.