Morning journal and courier., 1882-01-18
Price Four Cents.
NEW DEPARTURES IN THE LAW OF

 In the COURIER of last week there was no- ticed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (E Miller $ Go. vs Bridgeport Brass Co. holding that the reissued patent sued upon was invalid.
 It might seem from the short abstract giv- en that the court merely announced the well known rule that reissue to be valid must be for the same invention as that shown in the original patent. An early copy of the opin- ion sent to the counsel in the case diseloses that the court will no longer hold itself bound within the limits of the old rule. The decision is 8 new departure in the law of patents. Its effect upon patentees and upon those who have invested in patented inyen- tions cannot easily be estimated
 Judge Blatchford in recent case said 'It will be sad day for inventors and patentess when the highest tribunal does not make such an authoritative decision"
 But the sad day has come and with sn added sadness that the learned judge did not look for Because this new departure is at g tangent unforeseen by him, and, so far ss is known, unforeseen either by the bench or by the bar, its point of departure being zaeIes ! imputed to the applicant for want of due diligence. The record in the case just deci- ded as it went up was clean one. It called for and has met direct ruling. The Cir cult Court found as fact that 'the descrip- tive portion of the reissued specification does not substantially differ from the Ian guage of the descriptive portion of the orig inal specification
 The mistake was in the cLaim of the origi- nal to 8 combination of A, B and c, whereas the claim should have been to two independ- ent features, i. e., the combination of A and as well as the combination of 4, B andC. The Supreme Court do not go so far ss to insist that such mistake in the claim can 1 in no case be corrected They say Eff the mistake is apparent on the face of the patent and can be discovered as soon as that docu- ment is taken out of its envelope and open ed" the patentee may at once return it to the Patent office and say, T omitted this, or My solicitor did not understand thAt,n and his application may be entertained and on proper showing correction made But If he omits to do this "his omission to claim other devices or combinations apparent on the face of the patent is in law 8 dedication to the public of what is not claimed It is declaration that that which is not claimed is either not the patentee's invention, CT, if his, he dedicates it to the public. If two years public enjoyment of an invention with the consent and allowance of the inventor is evidence of abandonment and bar to an ap- plication for patent, public disclaimer in the patent itself should be considered equal ly favorable to the public. Nothing but clear mistake or inadvertence and speedy application for it's correction is admissible when it is sought merely to enlarge the claim.''
 But there is in this case another new de- parture.
 It has been uniformly held by the Supreme Court, as well as in all the circuits, that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Patents was exclusive over the question of fact, whether the original patent was or was not imperative by reason of inadvertence or mis- take, and that his judgment was so far final as to leave open to the courts only the ques- tion whether the two patents were for the same invention. But the Supreme Court say: 'In reference to reissues made for the purpose of enlarging the scope of the patent the rule of lachss should be strictly applied and no one should be relieved who has slept upon his rights, and has thus led the public to rely on the implied disclaimer involved in the terms of the original patent. And when this is a matter apparent on the face of the in strument upon mere comparison of the original patent with the reissue it is compe- tent for the courts to decide whether the delay was unreasonable and whether the re- issue was therefore contrary to law and void. We think that the delay in this case was alto gether unreasonable and that the patent could not lawfully be reissued for the pur- pose of enlarging the claim and extending the scope of the patent"
 The practical effect of this decision would seem to be that all reissued patents with claims broader than those of the original patents are void, unless the patentee has used due diligence" in the correction of an 'actual mistake" ]" and that two years from the date of the original patent is the limit within which he can be permitted to raise the question of due diligence Beyond that period the law assumes dedication to the public of every feature of the original patent not included in it's claims.
 It is true the decision applies this rRis in terms only to patents where the mistake is apparent on the face of the original patent. But reissues have always been held void If, upon comparison, the claimed mistake was not apparent on the face of the original pat ent
 There is much force and too much truth in the courts recital that, 'sThese after thoughts developed by the subsequent course of improvements and intended by an ex- pansion of claims to sweep into one net all the appliances necessary to monopolizs profitable manufacture are obnoxious to grave snimadversion. The evils which have grown from the practice have assumed large proportions. Patents have 1 been so expanded and idealized years after their first issue that hundreds and thousands of mechanics and manufacturers who had just reason to suppose that the field of action was open have been obliged to discontinue their employments or pay an enormous tax for continuing them"
 But it is to be regretted that the Supreme Court has reserved it's announcement of what must now be accepted as the law upon this subject so long that the remedy it prescribes for the evils which have grewn up under the sanction of it's previous decisions must im- pair large amounts of invested capital. B. 
 Promotion.