The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-12-01
PATENT CASE.

I.,,et Of Pennsy yana, is important TO persons IN
crested in procuring patents, we have deemsd Il
-. n give il TO our readers in srenso The point
;..o,vsd is the jurisdiction of the United States
II, ant of the District Of Columbia in proceed
.a. in equity under the l7lh section Of the act OF
Ialv A 1886, TO compel the commissioner to grant
,.,sD, on an application which has been rejected by
r., II will be seen that the case was ably argued
q, thecommissioner by General Brewster, OF Phil
,d.lobs, and the objection to the jurisdiction sus-
aimed in an elaborate opinion by the late Judge
D ,Ddsl. This case ia important to such persons az
=. dissatisfied with the decision of the commits
.ioosr upon their applications, and are disposed to
...k rsdress from tribunals existing out of the Dis
trct Of Columbia. ....
[RePOred for the North Amerlcsnl
Fliirh T. PrenIiss | Circuit Court U. 8, east
rsras ern district Of Pa.
Henry L. Ellsworth, NO l. ,o..
the Commissioner Of October sessions, lS45
Patents. !" eq""J'
The complainant filed his bill, complaining that
the defendant as Commissioner Of Patents, had re-
Gnssd TO grant HIM patent for certain improve
, ments made by him in the art Of weaving goods
Of various kinds, and prayed the Court should, by
decree order the letters patent prayed To be ssuei
Defendant fled plea to the jurisdiction, and
general demurrer TO the bill.
Mr. 3. Ii. Brewster, for Commissioner OF Pat
,nts The court has no jurisdIctioni defendant did
not reside and wbs not within its jurisdiction at the
time process issued (Act Of Congress, llh seci act
of 1883 The only court that can have Jurisdiction
at any Stage of proceedings TO obtain patent, IL the
Circuit Court OF the District Of Columbia. (Act OF
1901 and 1915; Cranch, 42l; Cranch, 2Ss;
Wheaton, 500; 7 Craneh, 202; l Peters, c. .. H.,
4s9)
Unless the court has jurisdiction under the patent
laws, or by some other act Of Congress, the bill
must be dismissed. Cranch, l73; Wash 232,
4DalIas, 7. The patent laws contain no provision
investing the circuit courts with such authority.
The policy Of the law is against the exercise Of this
authority. The commissioner would he exposed
m endIess trouble and lncOn yenience He would be
compeled 10 answer at the same time at different
noiots ofthe Union; and If The prayer of the bill
granted TO carry with him the models, looks papers,
and documen's that are of record in the Office
Al Washington, when thereby the public interests
would require them TO be in the custody of the de-
parment at the seat of government 2 Kent, 365
10 972 Phillips on patents, 3l3, 81, 1913. The law
furnishes a remedy for the errors Of hasty exam-
nation Of an application for patent. Sec. Of act
OF SO. The complainant must strictly conform to
the provisions Of that act, before he apply for
the Intervention Of a court OF equity, even had this
court jurisdiction and he must in his bill that
he has conforned to the provisions of the law. That
he has not done. The bill does not state that he
has complied with the provisions OF the act OF so
Peters C. C. r. $50 3 Howard, AL. The Com
missioner of Patents is the judge created by law 10
decide upon these questons-tO him must appIca-
uon be made and renewed after a certain formal
method laid down in the act, and this court could
not now assume decide the question, even had II
concurrent jurisdiction, much less when the exclu-
sye iursdictIon is vested in the commissioner. 8
Wheaton, 532; 1 Paine, 600.
This court has no power to enjoin or command
an officer of the general government residing at
Washington to perform any act. How then could
j, enforce its decreel l Kent $40; Dallas 40; 9
Peters 574 COZ; 8 Peters, BOG; ~ Peters, 52i; 10
Peters, 219; Peters, ga; 7 Cranch, SIT.
Mr.. WALs IN REPLY-Ifthe court has no juris-
dctlon then the party aggrieved is without remedy
The argument alb inconpenieni can never be urged
to deprive man Of his rights and all legal protection
The Jurisdiction is expressly given by the 18th Sec
ton of Of 80, and 10th section of act of 49, The
law provides that expenses shall be paid by com.
plainant, in contemplation of the Inconvenience TO
which the commissioner might be subjacted in COM
plants like this IL parties confined TO tho courts
of the District Of Columbia, then they could not
have the DEGREES of the enforced in any other
part Of the United States, except in their local urls
dlction. Ii is narrow construction Of the law to
GUST the jurisdiction.
RANpALL.-The bill in this case charges that on
or about the 9Th day Of March, lS43, the complain
States, describing certain improvements made by
him in the art of weaving, and that on about the
9Th day of August, 1884, he preferred his petition 10
the Commissioner of Patents, wherein he represent
ed that he had invented certain new and useful i'm
provements in the apparatus for weaving goods OF
various kinds, and did therein claim new Gas
specified in the btll") The bill further CHARGED that
the complainant, having in all things complied with
the terms and conditions of the Of Congress in
such cases made having furnished specifications,
drawings and models, and paid into the treasury the
legal fee, he did pray that letters patent Of the United
States might be granted, vesting in him and his legal
representatives the exclusive right to the said inveE
ton, &c, and that the commissioner intending, &c,
absolutely refuses to comply with the said reasona
bic request. After stating the formal excuses or pre-.
fences, and propoundmg certain interrogatories, the
orator prays that a copy of the bill may be served
on the Commissioner of Patents and that he may
be required to answer, to produce the specification,
model, drawing, and claim and that the court will
order and decree that the letters patent be issued
specified in his claim. " ~ ..
To this bill the defendant has filed a special plea,
denying the jurisdiction of this court "because he
says the supposed causes of complaint, and each
and every of them accrued out of the jurisdiction of
this court and that the said defendant commission
er as aforesaid was not found within the urisdic-
ton Of the court at the time Of serving the writ in
this complaint nor he an inhabi'ant within the
Jurisdiction of this court al the time Of serving the
writ Of subpoena on this complaint, and that he is
not liable, as commissioner as aforesaid, to the ju-
rsdction Of this court ~
He has also filed general demurrer to this bill
1t Is admitted that, unless the jurisdiction is given
by the 10th section of the act Of July A., 1896, "a
Story, IS, H. and the 10Th section Of the Of Sd
March, 1889, % Laws U. s., I020,) the complain
ant cannot have the rief prayed for in this court.
By the 7th section Of the act of 1896 il is enact
ed that on the filing of any such application, de-
scrpton, and specification, and the payment Of the
duty hereinafter provided, the commissioner shall
make, or cause to be made, an examination of the
alleged new invention or discovery; and if, on any
such examination, it shall not appear to the COM
missioner that the same had been invented or dis
covered by any other person in this country prior
to the alleged invention discovery thereof by the
applicant, that it had been patented described
in any printed publication in this or any foreign
country, or had been in public use on sale, with
The applicants consent or allowance prior to the APP
pcaon, IL the commissioner shall deem it to be snf-
hclen,ly useful and important, shall be his duty to
issue patent therefor. But whenever, on such ex-
animation, it shall appear to the commissioner that
applicant was not the original and first inventor
or dscoverer thereof or that any part of that which
ia 1laas.N 49,