Case Name: EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. MATHER ELECTRIC CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-12-17
Citations: 53 F. 244
Docket Number: No. 723
Parties: EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. MATHER ELECTRIC CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 53
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. MATHER ELECTRIC CO.
(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.
December 17, 1892.)
No. 723.
Patents — Suit for Infringement — Pleading—Demurrer—Amendment-
In a suit by a corporation for infringement of a patent, defendant de- ■ murred to the bill because it failed to allege a written assignment of the patent, or that the article had not been patented or described in any printed publication prior to the invention. Complainant then moved for leave to file an amended bill supplying these omissions. Held, that such a bill was not a new bill, and that defendant was not entitled, as a condition of allowing the same no he filed, to have his demurrer sustained as on final hearing, hut the filing would be allowed on payment of defendant’s reasonable costs, without passing upon the demurrer.
In Equity. Suit by the Edison Electric Light Company against the Mather Electric Company for infringement of a patent. On motion for leave to file an amended bill.
Granted.
Dyer & Seeley, for complainant.
West & Fairfax, for defendant.

Opinion:
TOWHSEND, District Judge.
Defendant demurred to the original bill because it failed to allege a written assignment of patent to complainant, and that it had not been patented or described in any printed publication prior to the invention. Complainant thereupon moved for leave to file an amended bill. Defendant claims that, if complainant is given leave to amend, his demurrer to the original bill should be sustained as on a final hearing. He cites no precedent or authority for this course, but claims that the amended hill is virtually a new MU. I do not find any material difference between the original and amended bills, except that in the latter the omissions above stated have been inserted. The motion is granted upon condition that complainant pay to defendant the probable disbursements to which it has been subjected by reason of the amendment, say $10, and with leave to defendant to file a pleading io the same on the next rule day. As I understand it not to be the practice in granting such a motion to pass upon the demurrer, I decline to make any order thereon, and deny defendant's motion for $20 costs for attorney's docket fee as on final decree.