Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. American Graphophone Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per CURIAM.
In affirming this decree we do not find it necessary to add anything to the careful and exhaustive discussion of the issues which will be found in Judge Hazel’s opinion, with one single exception. In disposing of the defense of prior public use based upon the lecture and exhibition before the Franklin Institute, the Circuit Court apparently relied mainly upon the proposition that what took place there was not a public use, but rather an experimental one. Without discussing the questions thus raised, or expressing any definite opinion either way, we prefer to dispose of the alleged prior public use by means of the application of Berliner, which was' filed six months prior to the Franklin Institute lecture, and which eventuated in patent 564,586, issued subsequent to the patent in suit. The specifications in that application for 564,586 were full enough to warrant the making of the claims here in controversy (5 and 35). At any time the application might have been amended by adding such claims, and in our opinion it is immaterial that, instead of thus amending it, he took the broader claims on another application, filed while the first was pending. The second may fairly be considered a continuation of the first, and thus Berliner’s application antedates the public use, and the facts will not sustain the contention that he abandoned his invention here in suit.
The decree is affirmed.
Leave to Amend Decree and to Apply for Rehearing on New Testimony.
There is no reason why the mandate should be amended because of any existing contract or stipulation as to licensing defendant. The decree does not operate to abrogate or modify any such agreement. As to the further relief prayed for, the motion is denied, on the ground of laches.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Galland-Henning Mfg. Co. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc.
- Insul-Wool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, Inc.
- Western Electric Co. v. General Talking Pictures Corp.
- American Tri-Ergon Corp. v. Paramount Publix Corp.
- Clark Stek-O Corp. v. Carpenter-Hiatt Sales Co.
- Warren Telechron Co. v. Kodel Electric & Mfg. Co.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.