Case ID: f_59/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BUFFINGTON, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MASSETH v. REIBER.
    (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
    January 15, 1894.)
    No. 16, Nov. Term, 1892.
    Patents — Infbin gement Suits — Defenses.
    Tlie refusal of a patentee to furnish his device, when requested, does not justify the use of an infringing article.
    In Equity. Suit by Benjamin Masseth against Ferd. Reiber for infringement of a patent. Decree for complainant,
    W. Balcewell & Sons, for complainant.
    T. O. Campbell, for defendant.
   BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This case is governed by that of Masseth v. Johnston, (No. 8, Nov. Term, 1892,) 59 Fed. 613, to the opinion in which we refer. One additional matter is set up in defense. It is alleged that respondent requested complainant to put in one of his packers, and that he arbitrarily refused to do so until respondent would direct the payment of a contested bill by a company of which he was superintendent. These facts, however, would not justify the respondent in using an infringing device. “The exclusive right to his discovery” is what the law confers on a patentee. Whether he exercises that right or not, by manufacturing his device, cannot affect his exclusive right under the patent. Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs, 39 Fed. 805: Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf'g Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 49 Fed. 930. We are of opinion the complainant is entitled to a decree.