Case Name: SMITH-WARREN CO. v. DAVID LUPTON'S SONS CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-10-13
Citations: 139 F. 1008
Docket Number: No. 31
Parties: SMITH-WARREN CO. v. DAVID LUPTON’S SONS CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 139
Pages: 1008–1008

Head Matter:
SMITH-WARREN CO. v. DAVID LUPTON’S SONS CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
October 13, 1905.)
No. 31.
Demurrer to Bill.
W. S. Jackson and A. B. Stickney, for complainant. ■
Fraley & Paul, for respondents.

Opinion:
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
The seventh and eighth grounds of demurrer seem to me to be well founded, but it does not follow that the bill must be dismissed. On the contrary, I think that the proper order is to strike out paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23, as containing what at present appears to be irrelevant matter, and require the defendants to answer the rest of the bill. If the answer sets up the Watkins patent as a justification for the defendants' acts, it will be time enough then to consider what place in the art that patent is entitled to hold, and how far it may be affected by what was done in the office while the application was pending. The clerk is directed to enter the appropriate order.