The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-11-22
u. 9. Circuit Court.


Nov 2l-IrUringement II q Pafenf.-Tatham Us. Cor
neH.-Ihe counsel in this which for the in
pipes having concluded, the Judge addressed the jury
at great length In the course OF his observations
he raid that the jury should not be msed by the
difference in the mechanical construction Of the t~o
machines but they should turn their attention to the
new idea developed by the plaintiffs and which
the desDdapts have embodied in their machine
The mere mechanical arrangement OF the TIVE
chimes is, Of itself. conclusive that they are DIFF
ferent but that view will not answer THY may
may not be different the question does not arise
upon the mechanical arrangement, but whether the
originality the discovery OF the plaintiff s etibodied
in the defendants construction. 1t is an error that
the pstentee houd be tied down to the very words Of
his patent The rulc is that the description of the
machine in the patent not only protects INN against
the scbne thus scribed but protects him against
every other machine. whstever may be the arrange
ment OF t. which embodies his invention He (the
judge made these observations to assist the Jury in
arriving at proper conclusion IA to whether or not
the noyelty-the new idea developed by the plaintiff
In his machine Is or Is not embraced in the do
PENDANTS. II IL is.t Ia an infringement OF the
patent: II II is not, then Il Is not an In
fringement. one OF the grounds Of the defence
IL, that admitting the change In the defendants
ch inc to embrace the novelty of the tion of
the pl ANITA eth the new construction OF the ds-
PENDANTS has proved q bsusht anc Improvements
over the platinum. construction that they got rid 2,
that In its practical operation it different aud new
and greatly ben.6cisf aud that they entitled
patent for It, To maintain the defence in this aspect
the change must be new as we'll rs beneficial, I'm
proving the pasented machine so az TO make better
will not bring the case within that principle IL
Improved result, by formal change would
avoid the Infringement and supersede the patent,
there very few machines that would he worth
the expense and the labor Of procuring pa
tent fer. An inventor may not Be mechanic and the
mechanic whom he Is forced 20 engage to work out his
ideas may not ,mbody all his iaeas sud may fail 20
perfect IT. thersiore will say that another person
can step IN and By en- Improvement OF THAI Invention
carry of the fruits of the dcovery Another defence
U.s. that the result OF the operation OF the two machines
is different ana ooubt II that IL 60, the defendants
mac bine ought to be this iubject OF patent Ths
ju6g- then went the material points of the evil
dsnce and stated the results OF the experiments es
fed 70 by OF them The evidence, he said, wa,
too strong 20 induce them :. believe that there
any substantial difference between the working Of the
two machines. Upon the subject Of damages the
Court remarked that the rnle law ia that the plain
tid Is allowed damages 10 the amount profits made
by the use OF the machine which In his invention IL
T. not n care for vipdictive damages but for the mere
loss the patentes has sustained by the Of his in
vention.
Council for defendants excepted to the charge.
Verdict fer the plaintiff So 2s5