Court Opinion

ID: 9299535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:05.55699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:37.857279
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). First point: The plaintiff is entitled to recover at law, no matter what private agreement subsists between him and any other person or persons, unless he has made a legal assignment and transfer of his interest in the invention: now, in this case, it does not appear that such an assignment has been made.
2. Whether this is a new and useful invention, you must decide. But the question is not, whether bells to give alarm or notice are new, but whether the use and application of them to fire engines, to be rung, not by manual action, but by the motion of the carriage, for the purpose of alarm or notice, is a new invention, or improvement of an old one? The power of steam is not new, and yet its application for propelling boats would be considered as such. Nevertheless, you must decide, on the evidence, whether the application of these bells to fire engines is new. As to the question of its utility, it is proved that the plaintiff has received fifty dollars from one fire company in Baltimore, for the privilege of using his invention; and the fire insurance companies of this city, by voting sums of money to the Philadelphia fire company, on account of their using them, is some evidence of their opinion.
3. This is called, in the patent, an alarm-bell; and so it certainly is, so far as it may give notice of a fire to the inhabitants, and to the members of the company of the engine to which they belong. A hose engine may as properly be called a fire engine, as any other used for extinguishing fire. It is true, that the thing for which the patent is granted should be truly and fully described in the specification; but if this is done, so as clearly to distinguish it from all other things before known, and so as to enable any person skilled in the art of which it is a branch, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, it is sufficient — the matters not disclosed must appear to have been concealed for the purpose of deceiving the public, to invalidate the patent.
4.The Üáijst question is, have the defendants by the devising or using their bells, violated the plaintiff’s right? The inquiries under this head are — 1st. Are the defendants’ bells, as used by them, an improvement of the plaintiff’s? Tou hate seen and tried both, and can decide. 2d.' Is it an improvement in the principle or in the form? If the former, then it is no invasion of the plaintiff’s privilege— if the latter, it is.
Verdict for defendants.