Court Opinion

ID: 6643009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:47:10.489388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:18.894977
License: Public Domain

BLATGHFORD, District Judge.
If the patent is valid, the infringement is admitted. The novelty, utility and patentability of the invention are, also, admitted, and the only question at issue in the case is, whether Neill was the original and sole inventor of the improvement, or whether one Francis P. Hale was a joint inventor of it with Neill. The burden of proof is on the defendants, to overthrow the prima facie title conferred by the patent. The testimony of Hale is directly contradicted by that of Neill, in all its material points, while the surrounding circumstances, that Hale was not a draughts-man, or a designer, or an inventor, and that Neill was a draughtsman, and had taken out patents for several inventions made by him, and that Hale has always neglected, it being nearly eight years since he knew that Neill had taken out a patent for the invention in question, to apply for a patent himself therefor, or to assert his rights in the premises in any legal form, corroborate the oath of Neill.
I find for the plaintiff, for the sum of $10,000.