The Law of Patents and Patent Practice in the Patent Office and the Federal Courts; with Rules and Forms Volume...
- ISBN-10
- 1230112952
- ISBN-13
- 9781230112954
- Pages
- 302
- Language
- English
- Published
- 2013-09
- Publisher
- Rarebooksclub.com
- Author
- James Love Hopkins
Description
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...645; White v. Lee, 3 Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. Rep. 25. F911 R911 224; Brown v. Lapham, 289. Mudgett v. Thomas, 55 27 Fed. Rep. 77; Sherman v. Fed. Rep. 645, 643: Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 526, 533. _ L first time upon his inquiry as to the validity of the patent will wipe out the effect of such dealings and they will offer no obstacle to his defense of a suit for infringement upon the ground of the invalidity of the patent in suit.'"' Nor is a defendant estopped from making such a defense by the fact that he has ofiered to take a license under the patent," or by the fact that he is a stockholder in the complainant corporation?" Similarly, even though he has exactly copied and appropriated the disclosure of the patent in suit, he is estopped to. deny the utility of the thing patented," but is not estopped to defend upon the other grounds attacking its patentability?" Nlor is such an estoppel created by the fact that the defendant has applied for a patent upon the same thing. "Whether or not there is any inconsistency in trying, at one time, to get a patent for a supposed invention, and in afterwards alleging, as against a rival successful in obtaining a patent, that there is no novelty in the invention, it certainly cannot be said to constitute an estoppel. Besides, the defense of want of patentable invention in a patent operates not merely to exonerate the defendant, but to relieve the public from an asserted monopoly, and the court cannot be prevented from so declaring by the fact that the defendant had inefiectually sought to secure the monopoly for himself."2' Where the complainant has never made or sold the patented device, and hence the provisions of 4900, R. S....
