Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1828-12-06
From the Commercial Advertiser.

Circuit Court of the United Stofes-We
have for some time contemplated giving a short
sketch Of a case tried at the present term Of this
Court, between Messrs. Grant & Townsend,
plaintiffs, and E. g. H.. Raymond, defendants (;
bur circumstances have heretofore prevented us
from 90 doing. We fow give our readers a brief
relation Of the most Interesting points in the
case, with the decision Of the Court upon the
questions Of law.
The action was brought for the infringement
ofthe patent right Of the plaintiffs for a machine
for making hat bodies. The defendants contend
ed that a machine acting upon the same princi-
pie and producing the same results, had been
Invented and put into operation by one SiIas
Mason, long before the invention Of the plain
tiff's machine, and that therefore the plaintiffs
not being the true inventors. could not recover,
but that their patent was void.
But if the plaintiff, Grant, was the true in
ventor the defendants contended that the patent
was void, for the following reasons That it
was a patent no, for a machine. but on abstract
principle That the specification was false in
claiming as an invention that which had been
long before known and that the specification
and drawing deposited in the Secretary's Of
fee were insufficient, and would not give a Inc,
chanic sufficient data from which to make the
machine. Upon this latter point, a host Of wit
nesses were Examined on both sides, but the de-
cision of the Court rendered their testimony I'M
important. A luminous charge was given to the
Jury, by his honor Judge Thompson, in the
course Of which he commented upon Tie vari.
Gus questions oflaw raised in the cause, and
gave his opinion in relation TO them. The plain
tiff, Grant, had obtainted a patent in the year
. 1921, which he surrendered IN. 1928 and took
out q new one. The Judge decided that he had
q right 30 to do, and that his present patent
must be considered in the same light as If no
other had been issued.
That an abstract principle was not p~atenta-
BILE, the Judge said was clearly law, but tais pa
tent was not liable to that objection. lie also,
charged that, the specifications and drawings in
the Sscretary's office might both be used to
make the machine, aud If it could be made from
two together it would be sutfi Client, but that the
model there deposited could not be used for
tina, purpose. lie then compared our Statute
with the English Statutes, and decided that the
jury must believe, under our S%latuie] that the
specialization was defective by reason If the
fraudulent or Intentional cOacedimeat Of the
patentse, ., olhcrwise the patent would DC good.
He perhaps would not he perfectly satisfied vi
the correctness of this position, had il not been
already expressly decid I'd in the U. s. Circuit
Courts in Boston aud Philadelphia.
The great question was then submitted 10 the
Jury, tchether or not Grant Das lie true i-
.pentvr ofthe machine. Tue testimony in reia-
zion to Mason's Invention. Wa fully commented
0pon, and the Jury were instructed, that IL was
mt necessary that Mason should have taken
out a patent in order to take away the plain.
tifs' highland. on the other hand, the PLAIN
tiiis' right would not be destroyed merely be-
cause Mason had produced The same result; but
that it must be shown that Mason produced the
same results by a machine acting upon the same
principle as the plaintiffs.
As To damages, the Judge said il was q ques-
ton exclusively for the jury that the plaintiffs
should pr the actual damages which they
had sustained, and that the net profits made by
the defendants was probably the bcst rule to
guide the Jury in assessing them.
The jury on Monday morning last, returned a
sealed verdict IN favor Of The plainliiIs tor three
Saousand ftco hundred and sirfy sir dollars
aud sirfy sir cents. which the court are by law
obliged to irebIe--making the Judgment,
69799 %. besides COSTS. -
III appeared in evidence on the foregoing trial,
the, the defendants purchased a right under siiss