New-York daily tribune., 1859-09-27
LAW NI,ELLIGENCE
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
United STATES CIRCUIT COURT-Sept- 10 -Beto


Judge Nelson and Judge hcgRsoLL.
FredercI Bartholomew as, Nathaniel sswysre a..
G. A. ISGgRsoLL, J.-lt appeared in evidences on
the trial the Jury, that the thing patented was dis
covered and invented by the plaintiff early as the
mouth of June 1885, that having subsequently tested
and perfected the same he applied for patent n the
month of February, 1853, and that the patent was
granted TO him the Goth of June, 1854. Previous
to his discovery the thing patented was rot known in
the United States. II was claimed by the defendants
that it wac known and in public use in England and
Scotland before such discovery and invention OF the
plaintiff. u was not claimed, however, aud no evil
depce offered to prove that the plaintiff, at the
time Of bis application to the Patent Office knew Of
such USE believed at that time that he not the
fret discoverer and inventor. 1t was not made TO sp-
pear that the same, or any substantial part thereof
had at sry time before the application for patent
been patented in any country. No evidence was Of
fered by the defendants to prove that the same or any
substantial part thereof, had at any time before the
application tor patent been patented in any country
No evidence offered by the defendants to prove
that the came any substantial part thereof, before
the plaintiffs discovery in june, 1890, had been de-
scribed in any printed publication, although 1t was
claimed By them, and evidence offered to prove
that subsequent TO the discovery Of the plaintiff, and
before his application for patent, there was an en-
CRAVING Of the patented device, and printed description
of the same without date accom- anying such en-
craving, publicly exhibited at the Crystal Palace ex.
hbiton in London in the year 1851, and tbereaf
ter and in the came year, brought to this country As
the tTia there was no proof that toe patenee at
the time Of his application for patent, did not believe
hnsel to be the frs. inventor or dscoyerer Of tho
thing patented; and at the time Of the application
be made oath that he did believe that he was suoh
st inventor and discoyerer, il must be held that at
the time of such application it satisfactorily appears
that he believed himself to lie the original and ilrst n
vento. and dscoverer Of the thing patented The de-
vice patented was known and in in this country 10
limited extent "a early "a the year loo2, the sSine
having been imported from England.
Daring the progress of the trial il was ruled by the
Cour; tba. the patent of the plaintiff could not be
avoided by the mere fact tina, the invention or dis
covery patented had been known and used 10 tofelgn
country before the discovery Of the plaintiff. Tne
Court also ruled that description in any printed pub
lcstion Of the thing patented could avoid the patent
unless such description in such printed publication was
ps;or in point OF time TO the invention Of the plaintiff
and 80 charged the Jury. The defendants Cain tina.
the Court erred in ruling and charging the Jury
that the Court should have red and charged the Jury
ths, if the thing patented had been described In
printed publication before the application o. the plain
titf for pateLt that that would void the patent,
though might have been after the invsntion of the
plaintiff. ,ooe
provides "thst any person persons having discOv-
cred or invented sDd useful art machine, manu-
facture composition OF matter! or any new and use
full improvements any art, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter not krown OF used BY others
before his their discovery inyeon thereof and
rot the time of his application for patent, IN pub
iic sale with his consent or allowance, az the
Inventor sr &ioy Oh SPPhcaeson W 49,
Commissioner Of Patents, obtain patent for the tang
invented or discoyered II the thing discovered or In
vented by the applicant known used before his
discovery or invention within the meaning OF these
erms as used by the Patent law then no legal patent
can b. granted and ii granted the same VIII VOID the
pates.- ,-.,
1t appears clearly by the latter part OF the I1th sec-
ton ot the act that by the terms not fnoVn ~
ussd Jy othsrs tstOTs has or neiT dtscoreFJ bereo
above reced not meant 70 be included use IN q
s,regn country but ths. such use by itse1 would not
void the patent For by tho latter section il u sx-
pr,ssly provided that whenever shall satisfactorily
appear tina. the pstentes at the time Of making his
APPLICATION for patent believed hnsefto be the frst
inventor or ii.coverer Of the thing patented The
shall not be void account Of the invention DIS
eoyery or any part thereof having teen before known
| or used N any foreign country And, as already
showr appeared the trial that the patentse dii
al the tine Of making his application fos pa.sIt, be-
leye hinsef 10 be the trt vsntor dscoverer OF
the thpg patented. The pster; Of the plaintiff there
FORE could not be voided By the fact that the
invent discovery pa,er.sd had been known or n
use in foreign country b.fore the discovery OF the
plaintiff. II also appears by the lth section of the
| came act, that the use meant BY these terms vas
intended to be confined USE dxoOvsry or inyeStioa
in this country, and made prOx 10 TIE discovery or
invention Of the applicant tAs proof Of which prior
must be limited provided TIE pstsntse, q, the
time Of his application, bshevei tlmseto be the hrst
inventor and dIscoyerer.
By the seventh section Of the same oct i is made the