The Portland daily press., 1873-05-19
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Suit Upon the Winsiow Patents.

The suit Upon the winsiow Patents.
Last Saturday, Judge Clifford delivered
before the Circuit Court in this city an elabor-
ate and exhaustive opinion on the validity of
the Winslow patents for preserving green corn
and other substances. The delivery occupied
an hour an half.
The history of this case is, in brief, as fol-
lows: In the year 1S40 Isaac Winslow, VINO
| was then il France, conceived the idea OF pre-
| serving sweet green corn by process tnae
should retain for years its natural na'oi ''nu
sncculeut ipices He wrote to a relative resld-
ing in Westbrook Me-, requesting him to plant
n cartai, nort;on of his land with sweet corn
that he might have the article for the purpose
of experimenting upon it. His request was
compiled WITH and on his return to this coun-
try he, for several years thereafter, devoted
himself to the task of reducing to practice hi,
conception. AS the corn when ripe hardened
rapidly, his opportunity for experimenting was
necessarily confined each year to the brief
period Of time when the corn was suitable for
MS purpose This at the outset was discourag-
ing He first tried the method. already In use,
hoping to discover what he sought by mprov-
ing upon them. First, he boiled corn upon the
cob and then packed it in hermeticaly sealed
vessels This failed, a. the cob absorbed the
flavor Of the corn. Next he cut the corn by
the usual method from the cob ant boiled the
corn, thon packed it as before. This also failed
as the juices and milk contained in tho kernel
were suffered to escape by the process of cut
finer nd xubo fak ha aap war fOuD nd
t, be unfit for use He tie n tried a new plan
which consisted in cutting the kernel from the
cob by means of peculiarly constructed knife
and packed the corn with Its juices and milk in
the can, and boiled it in hot water. This also
failed. The fermente gases expanded within
the can by the heat in process Of boiling and
burst it. 1t was at this pontn his experm emit
ing that the conception upon which his letters
patent were granted, was revealed to him. He
boiled the can up to the time when the expand
ed gas would be likely to hurst the vessel, when
he drew it from the water, punctured it, let out
the fermented and expanded gasses, resealed it
and continued the boiling until the corn was
sufficir ntly cooked. Here at hast was success
March 7th, 1853 he applied for letters patent,
bat for various reasons they were not granted
until May, 1862 During this interval of nine
yoars the inventor died. His heirs, j. W.
Jones, ct ais, engaged in the business of pack
ing by the process described, and for which let
tors patent were on file at Washington. The
great value of this process led other parties
throughout the United States, Illegally, as
claimed by Mr.. Jones, to engage in the same
business, using the process discovered
by Mr.. Winslow. In 1867 Mr.. Jones
Jones, and his co-heirs brought this suit against
several of the parties SO using his process, in
order to make it a test case for ALL The i'm
portance of this case will then he seen when it
is remembered that not only is the d3man and
consumption of preserved corn very large aud
largely increasing, but other articles like lob
sters, meat, etc.: are preserved by the same pro-
cess by large number of firms, involving a
capital of several millions of dollars and doing
business in various parts of the country.
Various defences were set up by the re.pon-
dents.
First, They ave ;red that Isaac Winslow was
not the inventor of the art of preserving green
corn in its natural state, and to substahtiate
that allegation introduced extracts from scien-
tifc works, and referred to certain patents
granted in England to English inventors at a
date considerably earlier than the Winslow in
vention. The Judge compared in detail these
averments with the specifications contained in
Winslows letters patent, and exhibited in this
analytic comparison, not only preponderense
of proof in favor of Winslow but conceded to
him a claim in matters entirely new over the
English claims.
Second, The defence declared that the inven-
tor b ad abandoned his invention prior to filing
his application for letters patent
Third. That he had abandoned his patent
after filing his application and before receiving
the preliminary rejection from the patent Of
fee.
Judge Clifford reviewed in detail with search
ing analysis these several averments of the de-
fence and compared them point by point with
the progress of Winslows' experiments, and his
persistent application of claim before the de-
pattment at Washington. The weight of opin-
ion was given on these points in favor OF Wins
low 1t was shown that Winslow patiently,
and with constant effort endeavored to en-
tighten the patent office as to the nicely and
value of his Invention. The court ruled that
any defendant who sets up that the inventor
has abandoned his invention must prove the al
legation by the most cogeat and conclusive tes-
timony, such as the acts and declarations of
the inventor himehlf. In this the defence Who'll
y tailed. Again, when an inventor has fiually
prosecuted his application to an allowance, the
testimony must be clear and conclusive TO sup
port the allegation to abandonment; that only
the inventor himself can abandon. and if public
useIs set up to prove Abandonment such use
must be shown to have been with the consent
and allowance of the Inventor, aud the court de-
cided as a matter of fact that if there had been
any publ c use of this invention the defence had
fully failed to connect it with the knowledge
aud consent of the inventor.
w. II. Clifford, Esq, of this city, counsel for
the claimants. may well feel proud of his suc-
cess. Against the opinion of some of the ablest
pat mt lawyers in the country, he undertook
this case in 1868, and although then but q
years of age and opposed by an array of emil
nent counsel for the defence has fought this
case step by step up to It's present time
The counsel for the defence propose to take ex
ceptions to the rulings of Judge Clifford and
carry the case up to the full bench. We under
stand that Mr.. JONES' under the decision Of
Saturday, proposes to move at once against all
parties infringing upon his rights granted by
his letters patent.