Case Name: HOVEY v. STEVENS
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1846-10
Citations: 12 F. Cas. 615
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOVEY v. STEVENS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 12
Pages: 615–621

Head Matter:
Case No. 6,746.
HOVEY v. STEVENS.
[3 Woodb. & M. 17; 2 Robb, Pat Cas. 567.]
Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
Oct Term, 1846.
Infringement of Patent — Description — Subject of — New. Invention — Costs in Equity.
1. In a patent for an improvement in the machinery to grind knives, it is necessary, by the act of congress, not only to describe the machine to be used under the patent, but to distinguish what part of it or what combination under it, is new, or is the improvement claimed to be invented. It is made necessary, also, by that act to do this in clear, intelligible, and certain terms. This is not now required to be done with so great accuracy as was formerly exacted, nor to be done in technical language; but it must.be made with reasonable certainty, and clearness. It may be done in a 'summary at the close of the specification, disclosing as new any of the machine before described, which is old in its parts, or in combination, or it may be done in the summary, referring in terms, or by implication, to other parts of the specification for assistance, and in such case the other parts are to be considered as explanatory of the summary, or a portion of it, for this purpose.
2. In this case, the summary appeared to claim a traverse motion of a part of the grinder, in-combination with a rotary one, so as to bring up the knife to the stone steadily, though spiral in form. On referring to other parts of the specification, as to what his invention consisted of, it still seemed to be the combination of those two motions, and it was held that such a combination, when connected, as here, with the mode of effecting it, was a legal subject of a patent.
3. But it being conceded that it was not original, the plaintiff was not allowed now to consider his invention or improvement to be the stock used in the machine, or the goose neck, pressing the blade against the stone, when he had not distinguished either of them in any portion of the specification as the new and particular improvement he had made, nor done it, if at all, with reasonable certainty.
4. It is not enough to describe a machine containing the stock, or goose neck; but he must state further, that they, or one of them,. is what he claims to have invented, either as a new part, or used in a new combination, if such be the fact.
5. So if he claims the whole machinery as newly invented, either in parts or in combination. he must state that distinctly; and it will suffice, if he really invented the whole combination, or all the parts. But if he claims too much, or too broadly, it will be fatal, unless the excess is disclaimed.
6. If his particular improvement, which he really meant to claim as new, is not distinguished from the rest of the machinery, as new, nor in sufficiently clear terms set out. the only mode of obviating the difficulty is either by an amended specification or a new patent.
7. Costs in equity are prima facie to be allowed to the prevailing party. But where they are inequitable in whole, or in part, they may be disallowed; though the burthen of showing them to be so rests on the party objecting to them. If the bill is brought solely for the benefit of the complainant, they are disallowed, to him, unless the respondent is charged with some wrong; and if the respondent succeeds on other grounds than those, in which cost was incurred, his cost may be disallowed in the discretion of the court.
[Cited in Bradley v. Rhines, 8 Wall. (75 U. S.) 393.]
8. But where he succeeds in a bill for an injunction against the use of a patent, on the objection of too great uncertainly in the specification, and no decision has been made in equity or. at law in favor of the originality of the patent, which had been denied by him, he is to receive costs incurred in that defence.
9. But where the evidence cast some shade over his fairness of conduct in respect to the plaintiff and his machine, the court declined to allow him beyond actual cost, and rejected travel and attendance in the bill in equity while taxed at the same terms in the suit at law.
[Cited in Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U. S. 705, 8 Sup. Ct. 678]
This was an action at law [by William Hovey against Silas Stevens] for a violation of a patent, which had been obtained by the complainant, for “a new and useful improvement in the machinery for grinding tools.” It was alleged be to peculiarly fitted to sharpen knives used in Hovey’s strawcutter, and the letters patent were in the form set out in the case of Hovey v. Stevens [Case No. 6,745], heard here May term, 1846, for an injunction. The material parts of the specification are there extracted, as well as in the opinion of the court here, and are referred to as part of this case. At the trial here, October term, 1846, before Judge SPRAGUE, the plaintiff, after proving his patent, offered a paper, certified to be a copy of one filed by him in the patent office, October 6, 1846, as a new specification for a reissue of' letters patent. It described certain portions of the original patent, as in substance in the case béfore referred to. It set out, also, that “the nature of my invention consists in applying to said machine a stock or arbor, having a flanch thereon, on which the spiral or twisted knives are fastened to be ground,” &c. And further, that the stock was “not claimed as new;” and in the close, that he did not “claim the grinder, the traversing carriage, or rotary motion, as they have before been used; but what I do claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is the combination of the stock, constructed” as described, and knives attached. &c., &c. The judge ruled, that this paper offered as evidence of a disclaimer of portions of the old specification, was not competent evidence for that purpose, as it had not been filed as a disclaimer in the patent office; nor was it completed as a new specification by a surrender of the old one. And he further stated, therefore, that, in his opinion, the plaintiff’s claim was so uncertain and so imperfectly described without it, or in the original specification, as to make his patent invalid until he filed another and more accurate and more specific description of what he deemed new and patentable in his invention. He neid, that it might be considered as clear enough for a combination of two motions described, but for nothing else; and the mode of con structing them was conceded not to be^ original. Thereupon the plaintiff became non-suit, with leave to move to set it aside, and be heard on this ruling before the' whole court The hearing was commenced in November, 1846, and renewed and finished in April, 1847.
C. Sumner and B. F. Hallett, for plaintiff.
Chas. Levi and Woodbury & Stanton, for defendant

Opinion:
SPRAGUE, District Judge,
stated his views at length, against the motion.