The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-02-17

ton, and yet be treated az filed, in its final
shape, at the date of the original filing.
Upon this hypothesis, how stands the law
We insist that all the provisions respecting
patents issued here after patents issued abroad,
are to be taken together; and that taken to-
gether, they constitute a general uniform pro-
vision, that no person shall be debarred from
obtaining patent in this country by reason OF
having obtained prior foreign patent, but that
in all such cases the American patent shall be
limited to fourteen years from the date OF the
foreign patent.
AS to the patent of 1886, for what is called
the local circuit:
The claim is substantially the same as the
claim for the combined circuit in the patent OF
1910, and therefore the second patent cannot
be sustained.
There remains for me but q single topic all
other matters, not already discussed by me on
this occasion, must submit TO the court upon
our brief in the case and upon the argument
of my able and learned associate (Mr. Gillet,)
The single topic remaining tor me Is the
question of infringement. And will not say
to the court upon the evidence in this case,
that the appellants have not, in some respects.
infringcd the patent of the appellees. But
will say, that believe the ingenious gentlemen
who invented in Kentucky the Columbian tel
egrapb, were far from supposing that by its
use, they infringed the patent of Morse. And
| will say farther, that in my judgment, the
Columbian telegraph is in some important
respects, an improvement upon the Morse tel
egraph. Learned skilled, and upright men,
wholly uncontradicted and wholly unimpeach-
ed, testify that the employment of permanent
magnets in the Columbian telegraph render
the instrument much less liable to disturbance
by atmospheric electricity; so much less that
it can be operated several hours day. upon
an average more than Morse's. This is a
great, a most valuable improvement.
Nor can the Columbian telegraph be con-
sdered as any infringement Of Morse's in any
part of its arrangement from the battery to
the electro magnet; for no part of Morse's ar
rangement as actually used, has, within their
boundaries anything new in it.
The Infringement commences with the add
ton of the pen point to the lever affixed to the
armature of the magnet, and the combination
of this lever and pen-point with the registering
apparatus The infringement not only com
mences, but it ends here, unless Morse is enti-
tied 10 the combined or local circuits notwith-
standing what was done by Professor Henry
III he ID so entitled, the infringement e&tenos
also to the use of these circuits.
further submit, that the Court below erred
in granting an injunction, as the validity of the
patent was questioned, and the novelty of the
invention patented was, in many respects, de-
MED
1t is not correct to say, that trial at law is
merely required, in order to satisfy the con-
science of the Chancellor before he issues an
injunction. Such o trial and final judgment
in favor of the plaintiff is required as a condi-
ton precedent to the exercise of the Chancel-
lor's jurisdiction, where there are serious OBJ
joctions to the validity of the patent, or where
there is a reasonable doubt about the alleged
Infringement.
Mr.. Chase concluded by observing that the
case was, in respect to the principles involved,
of vast Importance to the public at large.