Case Name: GOLD v. GOLD
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1911-04-10
Citations: 187 F. 273
Docket Number: No. 226
Parties: GOLD v. GOLD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 187
Pages: 273–276

Head Matter:
GOLD v. GOLD.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 10, 1911.
On Petition for Rehearing, April 25, 1911.)
No. 226.
1. Patents G 120 ) — Patent fob Same Invention — Suit to Obtain Issuance of Patent — Defenses.
■ Where a patent has been granted for specific devices, a second patent to the same patentee, containing generic claims which cover the specific devices of. the prior patent, would be void for double patenting, and the applicant cannot maintain a suit, under Rev. St. § 4915 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901. )>. 3392), to compel the issuance of such a patent.
[Kd. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 172; Dec. Dig. § 120.*]
2. Costs ($ 32*) — Right to Costs — Dismissal, of Bill.
A defendant, who obtains judgment dismissing a bill upon one defense, is not precluded from recovering costs because he has pleaded other defenses, which were without, merit.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 108-132; Dec. Dig. § 32.*
Right to costs in equity, see note io Tug River Coal & Salt Co. v. Brigel. 17 C. C. A. 308.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Suit in equity by Egbert H. Gold against Edward E. Gold. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 181 Fed. 544.
On appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the bill which was filed under section 4915 of the Eevised Statutes (IT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 8392) praying for a decree adjudging that the complainant is entitled to a patent for an invention as to which priority has been awarded to the defendant by the Patent Office, which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The defendant demurred upon several grounds but the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill with costs upon the single proposition that the patent if issued would be void for double patenting. At the request of counsel for both parties, the court took the case upon submission.
Otto Raymond Barnett and Samuel E. Darby, for appellant.
William A. Redding, Arthur C. Fraser, and Henry M. Turk, for appellee.
Before EACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes '

Opinion:
COXE, Circuit Judge.
Owing to the fact that the briefs discuss a number of propositions which are not directly involved in this appeal, the appearance of unusual complexity is given to what, in reality, is a comparatively simple question.
The bill filed under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes prays that the complainant may be awarded a patent for the invention pointed out in the claims set forth in paragraph VII of the bill. The bill also prays for a decree holding that the complainant was the original and first inventor of the invention pointed out in said claims and is entitled to a patent therefor in the proceedings now pending in the Patent Office. The demurrer presents the question that the so-called generic invention for which the complainant asks a patent is disclosed in patent No. 771,628 of October 4, 1904, attached to the bill, and that if another patent be given the complainant containing the broad claims asked for, the monopoly of the existing patent will be extended after its expiration, and parties making the specific devices released by the expiration of the prior patent may be held as infringers of the broad claims of the proposed patent. In other words, a new patent with broad claims will extend the monopoly of the earlier patent with more restricted claims. That the proposed claims are generic and the existing claims restricted, is alleged repeatedly in the bill. We see no answer to the proposition that the proposed patent would be void for double patenting. If the facts alleged in the bill be correct, the claims of the new patent, if issued, will cover the specific devices covered by the claims of No. 771,628, which devices the public have a right to use immediately after the expiration of that patent.
The Circuit Court was entirely justified in awarding costs to the defendant. It is enough that the demurrer was sustained. The fact that the defendant presented several grounds of demurrer which the court thought untenable is immaterial in view of the controlling fact that the demurrer was upheld and the bill dismissed.
A defendant who obtains judgment dismissing the complaint upon one defense is not precluded from recovering costs because he has pleaded a dozen other defenses which were wholly without merit.
The decree is affirmed with costs.