'■>>S.*i'<^Si--''-'-*''^, iiil" S5SSi?^fiSiSS?iJ: OlnrttfU Slam Bc\)qo{ Ktbrarg CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 299 B Cornell University M Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924062071299 outlhste /^/-^ OF TUB INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS, NOT DESIGNS, BASED SOLELY ON THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPEEME COUKT OF THE UNITED STATES, THOS. B.'hALL, OF THE CLEVELAJTI) BAB. NEW YORK AND ALBANY: BANKS & BROTHERS, LAW PUBLISHERS, 1895. Copyright, 1895, By THOS. B. hall. PREFACE. The aim hereof is to concisely present the doctrine that is settled by our final authority. It is substan- tially a summary of estabhshed points, from among the opinions severally set forth in my recent detail treatise on this subject — plus subsequent cases. Thos. B. Hall. Olevelwnd, 0., April 20, 1895. CONTENTS. Introduction Page 1 SUBJECT I. LICENSE UNDER PATENT. Analysis ..... License before Patent Application License by Recovery License in Sold Thing License op Repair . Duration of License Assignability of License . Annulment of License License by Sectional Owner . License op Foreign Law . SUBJECT II. IDENTITY OF INVENTION. Analysis Claim of Patent ..... Specification of Patent . . . . Record of Patent Application Doctrine of Equivalents SUBJECT III. VALIDITY OF PATENT. Analysis ...... Suggestion about Invention (V) 8 9 10 11 12 20 20 VI Date of Invention .... Skill of the Art .... Substitution of Materiai. Degree ....... Analogous Use .... Legitimate Combination Usefulness ..... Prior Knowledge or Use ... Prior Foreign Knowledge or Use Prior Patent or Printed Publication In Public Use or On Sale Abandonment by Previous Patent Sufficient Specification . Amendment op Patent Application Joinder of Inventions Grant of Patent ..... Limitation by Previous Foreign Patent Statutory Disclaimer Reissue Patents ..... Page . 21 21 . 22 23 . 23 24 . 25 27 . Si 31 . 33 35 . 86 36 . 37 37 . 38 . 39 41 SUBJECT ly. RECOVERY FOU INFEXNGEMEISTT. Analysis . Infringement Profits Infringement Damages 43 45 50 OUTLIl^E OP THE INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. "N"o question arising in any such [patent infringe- ment] case, reviewable by this Court, can be regarded as finally settled, so as to establish the law for like cases, until it has been determined by this Court." — United States Supreme Court, 1888. INFRINGEMENT OUTLINE. INTRODUOTIOlSr. Every patented invention consists of, and every patent infringement involves, certain means. But means may be either generic or specific ; and the means that con- stitute a patented invention may be so generic as to com- prise various kinds of specific means. Hence a patented invention may include a number of forms, each com- posed of detail means peculiar to itself ; additionally to the form that is composed of the detail means described by the patent. An infringement of a patented invention consists in making, using or selling mthin our country, during the term of the patent and without license thereunder, means that constitute a form of such invention. An infringe- ment is unlawful provided the patent be vaUd as regards the infringed invention. An unlawful infringement is subject to a recovery of money. Therefore in considering a matter of possible infringe- ment of a given patented invention — by the making, using or selling of given meahs within our country dur- ing the term of the patent — one or more of four ques- tions arise. The first question asks-if ' the given means be unlicensed under the patent; the second question asks if the given means constitute a form of the given patented invention. Should both ans wers be afiirmative, and thus show that an infringement is involved ; then (1) the third question arises, asking if the patent be valid for such infriuged iavention. Should this answer be affirmative, and thus show that the infringement is un- lawful; then the fourth question arises, asldng what sum may be recovered for such infringement. This last answer completes the points to be determined, inasmuch as an injunction against the continuance of an unlawful infringement is regularly grantable in due court pro- cedure. These four questions give rise to the four subjects, under which the matter of patent infringement is herein outhned. The first subject treating of license under a patent, the second subject treating of the identity of a patented invention, the third subject treating of the validity of a patent, the fourth subject treating of the recovery for an unlawful infringement. SUBJECT I. LICENSE UNDER PATENT. Analysis. The first one of the two questions pre- sented in considering if a given patented invention be infringed — by the maldng, using or selling of given means within our country during the term of the patent — concerns the right of a license. This subject treats, first, of implied licenses; then, of interpretations of licenses ; and finally, of licenses by certain parties. License before Patent Application. The course taken by the inventor before filing his application for the patent, may have been such as to have given an imphed license under the patent, for either one of three classes of means employing the patented invention. The first class comprises means purchased from the inventor before the patent apphcation. The second class comprises means made with the iaventor's consent before the patent application ; even though the inventor was then an employee of or a co-partner with such maker. The means of these first and second classes are impli- edly licensed under the patent, to be used and sold throughout the latter's term. The third class comprises means that are Subject to the hereinafter described right, in a case where the inventor, as employee, made the invention, pertaining to the business of his employer — either under or not under an express agreement to give his services to such mak- ing, but not under an express agreement to give the (3) employer any rigM under the patent; provided the invention was at the employer's expense, and before the patent application, the inventor acquiesced in the employer then enjoying the invention. This entire pro- viso being the actual premise in each decided case, whether or not the same be essential where the inventor expressly agreed to give his services to the making of the invention. Said expense of the employer includes such matters as experiments of the inventor carried on during work hours, assistance rendered him on the in- vention by co-employees during work hours, and ma- terial of the employer consumed by the inventor on the invention. Said acquiescence of the inventor includes his knowledge before the patent application, that the employer was then enjoying the invention — making, using, selhng the invented means, as the case may be — Avith a clear concurrence of the inventor in such enjoy- ment. The means of this third class are impliedly licensed under the patent ; to permit the invention to be enjoyed by said employer party, the same as was con- structively contemplated. This imphed hcense contin- ues throughout the patent term, even though said party may cease to be the inventor's employer ; but no right greater than this license exists in favor of such party, irrespective of said employment continuing or ceasing — and even though the patent was granted to the in- ventor, with its expense solely borne by the employer. License by Recovery. If a judgment for the recov- ery of damages in a patent infringement case, provide for any further enjoyment of certain infringing means in suit, and such judgment be satisfied ; then said means are impUedly licensed under the patent for such further enjoyment. But if the judgment for recovery pertain only to damages for the past, or be not satisfied so far as concerns any provision for the future; then such future enjoyment of said infringing means during the patent term, is not imphedly licensed by said recovery. License in Sold Thing. The ordinary sale by the pat- ent owner, of a thing embodying a patented invention of such patent, imphes a license under the latter through- out its term, for said thing to be used and sold. If the seller own an interest in the patent, not at the time of the sale, but subsequently; then he is estopped fxom alleging infringement by said previously sold thing. If the owner of a patent on a process, sell a thing that is commonly used in the latter, without anything being said on this point ; then there is no implied license to use said process with said sold thing — the use of the latter not necessarily involving the use of said process. License of Repair. The ordinary sale by the patent owner, of a thing embodying a patented invention of such patent, implies a license under the latter through- out its term, for the owner of said thing to restore it, as it may require, to operative condition ; the restoration being practically a repairing, in distinction from a sub- stantial remaking. A mutilation of said thing by its ovnier, with purpose to destroy it, may be such as to for- bid putting it in condition to resume its original service. Temporary means may be replaced, when worn out, to preserve the normal hfe of the means, taken as a whole, that constitute the patented invention embodied in the sold thing. So that, where such invention com- prises some means that require to be re-supphed to the remaining means — because used up in regular use, and to enable the patented means, as a whole, to accomplish the proper measure of their intended work — ■ such re- supply is impliedly licensed in an unqualified sale of the thing embodying said invention. Duration of License. The terms of an express license may give a restricted right, touching means that con- stitute a form of a patented invention ; so as to limit the use of said means by a purchaser from their licensed owner, to the time expressed in such license. If an express license state that it is for a given time, and make no provision for the possible death of the licensee ; then in the event of his death before the end of said time, the hcense does not endure for the licensee's es- tate, but expires. If an express license does not state how long it is for, and both parties continue life ; then it is for the remainder of the patent term, irrespective of it being an exclusive hcense or being a License in common. Assignability of License. An express hcense that is assigned by the licensee to a third party, without rati- fication by the licenser, is of no avail to such assignee unless the license provide in terms for such transfer. An implied hcense to enjoy a patented invention, which hcense is transferred by the hcensee to an assignee with- out ratification by the Licenser,- is of no avail to such assignee. Annulment of License. An express license, oral or written, the language of which makes no provision for its termination, cannot be annulled by the sole act of either the hcenser or the licensee; and can oniy be annulled either under their mutuaL agreement or by a judiciaL decree. License by Sectional Owner. If means, constituting a form of a patented invention, be made and sold within territory less than our whole country, by a party that unrestrictedly owns the entire right of the patent for such territory only ; then said means may be taken and used or sold by the purchaser, within other territory of our country, owned solely by another sectional owner of the same patent, Without the license of this latter sectional owner. And siich means are lawfully free from the patent throughout our country. , License of Foreign Law. The law of a foreign coun- try cannot affect a question of infringement under our law. So that, wliere a foreign law licenses a party to make, use and sell means, constituting a form of an in- vention patented in that country, which invention is also patented in our country ; then if means, so made in such foreign coimtry, be used or sold in our country during the term of and without license under our pat- ent, the latter is thereby infringed. SUBJECT II. IDENTITY OF INVENTION. Analysis. The remaining one of the two questions presented in considering if a given patented invention be infringed — by the making, using or selling of given means within our country during the term of the pat- ent — concerns the identity of a patented invention, in distinction from either a described or a claimed inven- tion. For, on the one hand, the entire means — the pro- cess, machine, manufacture or composition — that make up the subject of a patent, may contain any number of described and yet non-patented inventions. And, on the other hand, while a validly claimed invention can- not be other than aU and only the patent-described means that are expressly or impliedly included by a claim ; yet a validly patented invention may either be said claimed means or else be an equivalent thereof. A patented invention may be of any degree of breadth. It may be so broad as to comprise many forms, each composed of detail means not described by the patent ; or it may be so narrow as to be confined to the one form, composed of the detail means described by the patent. There are as many patented inventions as there are claims, of a patent. The identity of a given patented invention is established by four factors, which conjointly construe it, namely : The claim of the patent, the specification of the patent, the record of the patent application, the doctrine of equivalents. The present subject treats of these factors, severally, in order. (8) 9 Claim of Patent. The office of a claim is that of a technical summary, following the specification of the pat- ent ; including expressly or impliedly all and only such specification means, as constitute the invention claimed by that claim. The distinction between whatever the patent expressly includes within its scope, and whatever it impliedly excludes therefrom, being effected by its claim or claims ; and the latter legally constituting notice that the patent does not cover any invention which, though disclosed therein by drawing or descrip- tion, is not secured by a claim. So that, notwithstand- ing the specification may fuUy describe certain means, or definitely express a certain meaning; yet neither such means nor such meaning is necessarily construed into any claim of the patent. For while the specifica- tion may aid in interpreting a claim, yet the legal sense of the latter cannot be contrary to what its own terms express ; the language of the claim controlling as to the means included thereby, wherever such language is plain. Hence the entire means that make up the subject of a patent, may embrace means described by the speci- fication, that are not essential to some certain patent- able invention contained in said entire means; but if any such non-essential means be included by a claim, said certain patentable invention is not covered by that claim. Thus all the means that are included by a claim, constitute the invention secured by the latter ; and however trivial any one included means of a claim may seem, such means is a substantial part of the claimed invention. Because the words of a claim con- stitute the express terms — presented, allowed and closed 10 with, in the patent application procedure — that define the invention claimed thereby. And as the language of a claim may be either gen- eral or special, a given claim may be either broad or narrow ; while in either iastance, the invention that is covered by such claim, is founded on the same detail means described by the specification. For general language of a claim may comprehend special means not described, as well as special means described, by the specification. So that a claim, while not enumerating the detail steps or things that the specification discloses ; yet may be, in terms, for means that do a certain work substantially as set forth. Thus none of the mechan- ical devices of a specification may be named in a claim ; but the language of the latter be for mechanism that perform a defined function substantially as set forth. In such case, the claim covers a principle of invention having forms additional to that composed by the spe- cific means of the patent. The difference between such forms being an incident, not afl'fecting the generically phrased means of the claim. The claimed principle, irrespective of any non-claimed incident, determining the identity of the claimed invention. Specification of Patent. The office of the specifica- tion is to describe — either with or without the aid of drawings, forming a part of the specification — - all and only the means that make up the subject of the pat- ent, so that such subject may be understood by persons skilled in the art ; said means, thereby, constituting a form of the patented invention or inventions. This de- scription is, however, the foundation of every patented invention of the patent ; as the means set forth by the 11 specification maj'' contain any number of claimed in- ventions. • The degree of identity that a given claimed invention bears to the entire means described.by the specification, is determined by the means that are included by the claim, in question. The more means that are included by said claim, the more is the resemblance between such claimed invention and the entire specification means. The less means that are included, the less is such re- semblance. If a specification describe certain means merely as being desirable, then such non-essential means are not impliedly included in any claim thereunder. A claimed invention is impliedly for every use of which it is capa- ble, although its specification does not mention such use. A claim does not impliedly include certain specification means, if the inclusion would cause the then claimed invention to attain an end different from that which its specification states to be its object. But the broad question — whether certain means which are expressed only in the specification, are or are not imphedly in- cluded in a given claim of a patent — is determined in view of the entire premises of the particular case, by the composite doctrine touching the patent claim, the patent specification and the patent application record, as set forth under the present subject. Record of Patent Application. All papers relating to the application for a patent are of public record. They constitute a history of the entire proceedings — thus including official actions upon the patentability of presented claims, and amendments to the apphcation. An official action may show that a claim, or a portion of the specification, as the same had once been presented, 12 had thereupon been rejected as being too broad; for instance, on the charge that its subject-matter was an- ticipated by certain reference to the prior state of the art. An application amendment may show that be- cause of such oiiicial action, change had been made in the apphcation ; either by inserting narrower terms in. the rejected claim or in the rejected portion of the spec- ification, or else by cancehng such claim or such por- tion of the specification. Should the application record of a patent disclose any such oflicial action and apphcation amendment, touching a claimed invention ; then the legal scope of the latter is correspondingly less than it otherwise might be. Every limitation of a patent that was introduced into the apph- cation, on account of a prior adverse official action, be- ing construed against the patent, akin to a disclaimer. The rule — that no claim of a patent is construed to be for an invention that was presented by the terms of any claim in the patent apphcation, which application claim met with an adverse official decision and was thereupon canceled — is applicable ; irrespective of the canceled apphcation claim having defined an invention broader or narrower than the invention defined by the patent claim that was substituted for such canceled claim. Doctrine of Equivalents. This doctrine is, that as con- cerns a question of infringement of a patent, a claimed means of the latter has its known equivalent in any other means known to do substantially the work of such claimed means, in substantially the way in which the latter does it. A patent claim impliedly covers all means, though neither expressed therein nor described in the patent specification, that perform essentially the func- tion of the specification means embraced by said claim, 13 in essentially the manner in which such claimed means perform it. Any non-described means that is equiva- lent to a described means included by a patent claim, is within the scope of the latter, as truly as though it had been described in the specification and expressed in the claim ; and this holds irrespective of there thus being an equivalent for only one or for every one of the means included by the claim. The prior state of the art is the state of advancement that competent evidence shows to have been attained in the art, previously to the inventing of the specification means that are covered by the claim in question. Such competent evidence comprises matter that existed in our country ; or that was set forth in either a patent or a printed publication of our or of a foreign country — as described on page 31. It does not comprise matter that existed in a foreign country, otherwise than as so set forth in either a patent or a printed publication. The means that are described and generically claimed by a valid patent, may differ so widely from the prior state of the art, that subsequently invented means, described and specifically claimed by an independent valid patent, may constitute an infringing equivalent for said earher means. Relatively to the validity of the claim on said subsequent means, the latter are sub- stantially different from said earlier means ; bat relar tively to the infringement of the claim on said earher means, said subsequent means are substantially the same as said earlier means. Hence in a case where one patent has a valid broad claim on the first invented means essential to a certain patentable principle, and another patent has a valid nar- row claim on later means applying the same principle ; 14 there the narrowly claimed means are an equivalent for the broadly claimed means, while the broadly claimed means are not an equivalent for the narrowly claimed means. The two means being recognized substitutes for one another, as regards the infringement of a claim covering a principle of invention applied by both means ; but not being recognized substitutes for one another, as regards the infringement of a claim restricted to one of such two means as distinguished from the other. Therefore while a first invention and a second inven- tion may not be substantially the same as concerns a question of vahdly patentable merit of the second over the first, and hence, also, as concerns a question of right of the owner of the first to employ the second; yet they may be substantially the same as concerns a ques- tion of infringement of a claim on the first by the sec- ond. The matter under the present title refers solely to the infringement, and not to the validity, of a patented invention. So that all means are herein compared as being either substantially the same as or substantially different from one another, wholly in the sense of the doctrine of equivalents regarding a question of the infringement of a patented invention. Whether given means are or are not substantially the same as the specification means that are compre- hended by a certain claim, depends on the prior state of the art at the date of the inventing of such claimed means. The claim itself, the patent specification and the patent application recoi'd — three out of the four factors that establish the identity of a patented inven- tion — mark out all limitations touching patent-described means that are claimed. But after said three factors have thus fulfilled their part, it rests with the fourth 15 factor — the doctrine of equivalents, as applied in view of the prior state of the art at the date of the invent- ing of the claimed means — to mark out aU limitations touching means not described by the patent, that are the equivalents of said claimed means. By either includ- ing within or excluding from the range of recognized substitutes for such specification means as are claimed, any other means that do substantially the vi^ork of said claimed means — the doctrine of equivalents determines vrhether such other means are substantiaRy the same as or substantially different from the claimed means ; and, therefore, whether they are or are not covered by the patent claim in question. Hence the doctrine of equivalents cannot aflFect the question as to what specification means are claimed ; but when the given claim, the specification and the patent apphcation record have answered this question — then the doctrine of equivalents fixes the scope of equivalents for any such means. So that the invention which is patented by the claim, may comprise means other than those set forth in the specification, for doing substantially the work done by the claimed means. Therefore while the patented invention always com- prehends the claimed invention; yet it also compre- hends every invention that is the equivalent of the claimed invention, in an infringement issue. Thus the patented invention may be broader than the claimed iuvention ; the claim covering in addition to the claimed means, means that are different from but equivalent to such claimed means. The degree of difference that may exist between any claimed means and their equivalent means, is determined by the patentable difference between such claimed means 16 and the prior state of the art. If this patentable differ- ence be great, the difference between the claimed means and any equivalent means may be great. But if this patentable difference be only little, then the difference between the claimed means and any equivalent means can be but little. Hence if the general result that is accomplished by the claimed means, was not accom- plished by the prior state of the art ; then many kinds of means are respectively equivalents of the claimed means, that otherwise would not be such equivalents. In a case where the same general result is accom- phshed on the part of each of two independent inventors, respectively, by means bearing a somewhat general resemblance to each other, and each inventor has a patent having all its claims valid, the followuig con- clusion obtains, namely : If one of the two patentees first invented means, containing a patentable principle, and his patent have a claim that includes only the ge- neric means essential to said principle, then the subse- quently invented means of the other patentee, if recogniz- ed as working on said principle, are an equivalent for the claimed means of the first inventor ; but if said two patentees together gradually invented their respective means, so that neither one first developed any form of means, containing a patentable principle on which the means of both work, then no claim of either one of the patents covers means that have their equivalent in the means of the other patent. Although certain claimed means were the first that accomphshed a valuable general result, yet no means are an equivalent thereof that do not accomplish such result in substantially the same way therewith. And while equivalent means always accomplish either the 17 same or else an analogous kind of result that is accom- plished by the claimed means ; yet they need not attain the same degree of result that the claimed means do. So, too, equivalent means may not only be constructed in a form other than that of the claimed means ; but, also, may operate in a detail way other and better than that which the patent describes as being the operation of the claimed means. Nevertheless the substance of an equivalent can be successfully substituted for its cor- respondiag means, in the claimed invention; and the substance of such corresponding means can be success- fully substituted for said equivalent, in the infringing combination of means. But claimed means do not have their equivalent in means that resemble such claimed means less than they resemble the prior art. Where a claun is for a certain combination of mechan- ical means, another combination of mechanical means is not an equivalent thereof if it omit a means of the claimed combination without any mechanical substitute ; the function of the omitted means being fulfilled by man- ual work — or by a natural cause, such as the attraction of gravitation. Also where a claim is for a certain combination of means, another combination of means is not an equivalent thereof if it substitutes for one means of the daimed combination, a means that has a substantially different character and operation from the omitted means ; even though such other combination of means be otherwise the duplicate of the claimed com- bination. Eut where a certain combination of means is the duplicate of a claimed combination of means, except for one means that is not the equivalent of the one omitted means of the claimed combination, as such two means are considered separately from their respec- 18 tive combinations ; there, if in said combinations such two means, severally, attain substantially the same object in substantially the same manner, they are equiv- alents so far as concerns said combinations. It may be important to consider the object, respec- tively, of the claimed means in question and of the alleged equivalent; in order to better understand the function of each, and the way in which such function is performed. But whatever given means are identical with or are equivalent to such claimed means, are the patented means in question ; notwithstanding the same be applied to a use diilereut from but analogous to the use to which said claimed means are applied in the patent, or for which they are stated in the patent to be intended. So, too, given means may be the equivalent of the claimed means in question, although not attain- ing aU the objects had in view or attained by said claimed means — where the attainment of aU such ob- jects is not essential to the identity of said claimed means. But even though given means bear the same names as do the claimed means in question, yet they are not the equivalent thereof if they perform substan- tially a different function from that performed by such claimed means ; or if they perform substantially the same function as that performed by said claimed means, but in substantially a different way therefrom. A liberal legal construction is allowed to a claim on a pioneer invention ; for instance, to a claim on the underlying invention that is embodied in the first ma- chine capable of automatically accomplishing its general result. On account of the primary character of such an invention, which as a whole performs entirely new me- chanical functions, a wide scope of equivalency obtains 19 for the claimed means; provided the latter — as con- jointly construed by the claim, the specification and the patent application record — are only the generic means essential to the principle of invention productive of said result. Premising that the claim be for the combination of three main groups of mechanism in this first machine, such combination has its equivalent in a subsequently invented, and even validly patented, msichine having three main groups of mechanism combined to accomplish said general result, and, respec- tively, performing the functions of the groups of the first machine in substantially their way ; notwithstand- ing one group of the subsequent machine be more simple than, and each of the two other groups be differ- ently constructed in detail from, the corresponding group of the first machine. For in view of the prem- ises of the case, said mechanism of the subsequent ma- chine — although not before known in a machine for accomplishing said general result of the first machine, but recognized in mechanics as a proper substitute for said mechanism of the first machine, to effect said gen- eral result — constitutes a known equivalent for the claimed means in question. SUBJECT m. TALIDITT OF PATENT. Analysis. The single question presented in consid- ering a matter wherein infringement of a patent claim is found, concerns the validity of the patent as regards said claim; for an infringement of a patent claim is unlawful only if such claim be vahd. One fundamen- tal principle throughout this question is that the means which are covered by a vahd claim, must be invented, in distinction from merely being new, relatively to the prior state of the art ; the qualification of invention be- ing as requisite as the respective qualifications of novelty and usefulness. Because useful arts naturally develop under industrial reqiiirement, and the law regularly looks for better results with the normal progress of new works ; while an invention is required to project so far out from the expected hue of advance in its art, as to evidence a faculty higher than Avhat produces simply new and useful improvements — this faculty being called inventive genius. The present subject treats, respective- ly, of various tests touching vaUdity, that a patent claim is subjected to ; including several that are different spe- cies of the generic mquiry, whether the claimed means involved invention — and that, also, so overlap one an- other at certain, points as to there be essentially the same test. Suggestiou about Invention. A claim is invalid if its means were not substantially originated by the per- (20) 21 son that applied for the patent as inventor. Hence if a patentee first thought of the desirability of the quali- ties of the claimed means, but employed a person to devise said means having such qualities, then the pat- entee did not invent said means. On the other hand, if a patentee first thought of the principle of the claimed means, and in experimenting thereon adopted certain incidents suggested by an employee, then the patentee did invent said means. Also though a patentee ob- tained information and advice from books or from per- sons, he may nevertheless have invented the claimed means ; especially where high scientific knowledge or fine mechanical skill was involved. Date of Invention. The date of the malcing of a -psdr ented invention may extend back, not only to a prac- tical test thereof, but, also, either to a description, oral or written, to a drawing or to a model, such that the invention could therefrom have been understood by per- sons skilled in the art. That is, the invention bears date of time when, as proved by competent evidence, its plan and means were arranged in the mind of the inventor, although not then embodied in working form. Skill of tie Art. A claim is invalid if it covers means developed merely by the perfection of workmanship that remedies a defect in a thing, avoids an injury there- to, strengthens it at a point of strain, aids its opera- tion, increases its convenience, extends its use, lessens its expense or attains a desired end. For while invented means may possess one or more of these advantages or improvements ; yet any means that have no other quali- fication than the foregoing, simply show what high de- gree of knowledge and execution may follow intelligent and constant practice in an art. So, too, mere skill of 22 the art may make new and useful means, by adapting old means to new circumstances, or by applying general knowledge to the attainment of a particular purpose. But if claimed means have succeeded in producing a new and beneficial result that was previously desired, the same argues in favor of such means having been be- yond the skiU of the art ; even though artisans of the craft may after seeing them, think that they could have devised them by art skiU. Also notwithstanding the specification apparatus for carrying out a claimed process be old, and the sole matter in question be an improvement on a prior process, by omitting one means therefrom ; yet the claim may be vaKd if its means be highly useful, and were discovered only after careful experiment and the exercise of great ingenuity. Also while the mechanism that is set forth in a patent on a process, may be whoUy within the skill of the art ; yet said process may be beyond such skiU, and the claim thereon be valid. Substitution of Material. A claim is invalid if it covers Taevelj the substitution of one old material for another ; without involving a new result, a new ofiice or a new method of operation, on the part of the means in question. Because a mechanical means that is made of one material instead of another, and that performs in the same way the same function that it does vsdthout such substitution, is not thereby changed as regards any attribute affecting question of patentability. Hence a claim is invalid if it be for a substitution of material^ whereby a thing is presented that is merely cheaper, stronger, superior, less buUiy or requu-ing less repair ; such improvements ensuiag not from any patentable 23 qualification, but from the better adaptation of the sub- stituted material for the end in view. Degree. A claim is invalid if its means do in sub- tantially the same way, that which the prior art has done without so good a result ; such claimed means hav- ing simply carried forward an old idea. Because means that merely have either better construction, larger size, more usefulness, higher quality or greater value than the prior art had, do not possess any qualification that sustains a claim. They constitute improvements in degree, not in kind; and only the more thoroughly attain an old end by an old way. Thus a claim is invalid if the claim.ed means and certain prior means be substantially alike ; the differ- ence being merely that the prior means were smaller than the claimed means, and intended only for work on a smaller and another article than the latter are in- tended for. So, too, notwithstanding claimed means, by being enlarged over prior means, be capable of a somewhat different manner of use from what was possi- ble with the prior means, yet inventive genius may not have been involved in making such claimed means. But a claim may be valid for a manufacture that has certain parts stronger than certain other parts, pro- vided such manufacture presents a practical thing that was previously tried to be made, and was only produced at the end of a line of previous experiment and failure. Analogous Use. A claim is invalid if it be for the ba,re application to a purpose that would occur to per- sons skilled in the art, of means that were old in use for another purpose ; no new operation, office nor result fol- lowing, that is different in kind, not merely degree, from what previously existed. Hence a claim is invalid for 24 merely applying old means to an object similar to what they had before been applied, notwithstanding an im- provement be thereby made. Likewise a claim is in- valid for old means merely transferred to a new but like field of work; where they perform substantially the same result in substantially the same manner that they did before the transfer. Lawfully patented means are regularly subject to, and vahd for, whatever new but analogous use they may prove to be qualified for, in either the same or a different art; irrespective of such use having or not having been previously thought of, and although the patent does not mention any such qualification. But the adaptation, through new means or meritorious change, of old means to a substantially different field of work from their former field — particularly where said means thereby produce a new result or perform an essentially different function from what thej'' previously did — may involve invention. Legitimate Combination. A claim is iavalid if it be for a combination of old means that is merely new and useful ; the work done by the combination not being a unitary product caused by the co-operating action of said means, but being simply an aggregate of the re- spective individual results of such means. Therefore a combination of old means is not legitimate if the com- bination does not quahfy the office of such means ; the combination, as compared with the several means that accomplish the sum of its functions, neither performing a new function, modifying an old function nor perform- ing the latter in a new way. Under this doctrine a combination of old means is not legitimate even though such means accomphsh a 25 better result when united than when separated, pro- vided the means do only the same work in the same way in the two instances ; each means operating inde- pendently, without involving either a new result or an old result by a new way, whether maintained apart or together. IS'either is a combination of old means legit- imate if the operation and result be accomphshed by less than aU of such means ; the remaining means ful- filhng no office in, and contributing nothing towards, the accomplishment of said result. But a combination of means may be legitimate al- though every one of them had been previously used in one kind or another of the same class of means ; provided the result of such combination be a single jointly-produced one, possessing some qualification that cannot be distinctively attributed to the individual work of some one of said means unaffected by its companion means. A legitimate combination cannot be anticipated by finding different ones of its means, respectively, in dif- ferent patents, publications or other competent evidence of the prior art ; one of the combinations means being found in one prior source, another one of the combina- tion means being found in another prior source, and so on throughout the entire number of the combination means. Because a legitimate combination can only be anticipated by a combination of means existing in the prior art, substantially the same as the combination of the claim in question. Usefulness. A claim is iavalid if it be construed to cover a certain result, or all means that attain a certain purpose ; because a vahd claim can be only for certain means that accomplish a given result, notwithstanding 26 the latter was first attained only by the means described by the patent in question. Thus while a claim is invalid if it be construed to cover a scientific fact first discov- ered, of great usefulness ; yet it may be valid if it be for first invented means that utilize such fact. Like- wise a claim is invalid if its legal construction be either for or for a use of a newly discovered natural agent, such as steam or electricity — or for a newly discovered power, property or use of a -previously discovered nat- ural agent; but a claim may be valid for means that seize, change or adapt either a newly or a pre^dously discovered natural agent for use. This doctrine rests on the ground that every invention, however useful it may be, consists of invented means ; and that a validly patented invention cannot be other than the described and claimed means, or else be the equivalent of such means. But inasmuch as under the doctrine of equivalents, in the determination of the scope of a patented invention, useful means that constitute a broad invention, and that are broadly claimed, have a correspondingly broad range of equivalents — it follows that such means may be sub- stituted by many detail kind of means not set forth by the patent ; yet which are in view of the premises, con- strued by the doctrine of equivalents to be substantially the same means as the claimed means set forth by the patent. Thus where throughout the term of such a broad and valid patent, all other known specific means capable of accompHshing the general result that was first accomplished by the generically claimed means of the patent, prove to be the equivalents of said clauned means; there the patent is valid in covering all said 27 other known specific means, as constituting different forms of the one unusually useful invention in question. If the means that are covered by a claim did not in- volve invention, the claim is invalid ; regardless of the fact that such claimed means may have practically driven aU other means of their class out of the market. For validly patented means must possess the merit of having been invented, notwithstanding they possess the merits of being both new and useful ; also commercial success is not conclusive even of the increased usefulness of patented means over the prior state of art, because heavy sales may be due to business energy, effective advertising or large commissions. But if there be a doubt in view of the other premises in a case, as to the patented means in question haAang required inventive genius ; then such doubt may be resolved in favor of the patented means, if said patented means by reason of their inherent merit, have generally superseded the means previously used for like purposes. ISTotwithstanding an inventor at the time of filing his patent application, had never made nor operated means that attained the useful end in view ; yet if his patent be such as to enable persons skilled in the art to make and use means that attain said end, it is not thereby in- valid on the charge of its means not having constituted a useful invention. Prior Knowledge or Use. The following will be under- stood throughout the present title, namely : (a) The patented invention consists of all and only the means that are covered by the patent claim in question, and an anticipation of such patented invention is an invali- dation thereof ; (5) the prior means are means that were known or used in our country before the date of the 28 foregoing defined invention ; (c) any means that were merely linown or used in a foreign country, but not in our country, are not comprehended. If there were prior means of such character as could be an infringement of the patented invention, had they not existed until after the latter ; then they were of such character as to be an invalidation of said invention. What infringes if later, anticipates when earlier. If, one specimen of completed prior means like the pat- ented invention, was known to several persons and was successful in use, such patented invention is invalid. It has been said that prior knowledge and successful use by one person, is sufficient to cause prior means like the patented invention, to invalidate the latter. If completed and satisfactory prior means like the patented invention, were not subsequently alfered, they invalidate the latter ; even though they were then em- braced in a combination of means that was not com- pleted and satisfactory until after the date of said patented invention. Likewise notwithstanding prior means were not intended, and perhaps were not known, to possess the feature on which validity of the patented invention is based ; yet if said prior means as regularly existing and used, did actually possess such feature, the patented invention is invalid. So, too, the patented in- vention is invalidated by prior hke means that were successfully used, although somewhat imperfectly ap- plied, or less perfect in construction and operation than said invention. Also the patented invention is invali- dated by prior like means, concealed from view by other means of the thing in which they were embodied ; where the character of such prior means was necessarily known to the workmen that made them, and their 29 concealed embodiment in the thing that used them was in accordance with their legitimate use. The patented invention is invahdated by a single spec- imen of prior hive means that was used only during a short period, and was then taken from the thing in which it was so used, and different means substituted therefor — and though during such short period said single specimen was used only at intervals, and there- after was neither used nor duplicated for use ; provided the use to which it was put, was an ordinary public use for ordinary service, that proved practical, and as suc- cessful as could reasonably be expected in view of the then existing art in which such specunen was used — the disuse being not due to any defect in said prior means. Prior means must, however, not only shoulder the burden of proof, to invalidate the patented invention ; but every reasonable doubt thereon must be resolved in favor of the latter. If prior means did not advance beyond unsuccessful and abandoned experiment, then there was not the certainty, in distinction from conjec- ture, that alone can invalidate the patented invention. Inasmuch as in order that prior means may be com- petent to invaUdate the patented invention, they must have been so far perfected as to prove their actual use- fulness; although they need not have accomphshed their practical purpose so well as said invention. The patented invention is not invahdated by reason of a prior patent apphcation on prior means, which pat- ent application was not prosecuted through to patent issue. For prior means that formed the subject-matter of a mere prior patent application, and which would otherwise not invalidate the patented invention, are not rendered by virtue of such patent application, competent 30 to invalidate said invention. Bat prior like means that worked perfectly in ordinary use, invalidate the pat- ented invention ; even though an allowed patent appli- cation for such prior means did not issue to patent. A patented process is not invalidated by a like but accidental prior process, that was not understood as to its operation or result, and did not excite attention. Nor is a patented mechanism invalidated by a like but accidental operation of prior means, that was not with- in the principle of the latters' mechanical construction ; the prior means not having been intended for such pur- pose, not showing that they were to be used in such way, and not really so used. The patented invention is not invalidated by alleged prior like unpatented means, evidenced only by oral testimony, unless they are clearly proved beyond a rea- sonable doubt. Because, generally, the character of such testimony on such point is unsatisfactory ; many valid and valuable patented inventions having been as- sailed by witnesses whose imagination or fabrication set up prior like means. Hence even though it be pos- sible that an experimenter had crudely made prior means sinular to the patented invention ; yet if the latter was first made known to the world, and practically used, and met with extensive adoption, doubt is resolved in favor of its validity. A slight difference between the prior state of the art and a patented invention, may cause the latter to attaia great use and value, in view of which it is vahd ; pre- vious failure having been turned into success by such invention, and the latter although constituting only the final step in a race for the desired end, yet Avinning as such final step. 81 Prior Foreign Knowledge or Use. A patent claim is not invalid because like means were merely known or used in a foreign country, without having been patented, or described in a printed publication, before the claimed means were invented by the patentee ; provided the latter at the time of his patent appKcation, believed that he was the first inventor. Prior Patent or Printed Publication. The following "will be understood throughout the present title, name- ly: {a) The prior patents or printed publications are either of our own or of a foreign country, made known to the world before the date of the invention that is covered by the patent claim in question; (5) said invention is invahdated by any such prior patent or printed publication that sets forth means substantially like the invention in question, sufficiently to be under- stood by persons skilled in the art ; (c) a prior patent sets forth its means by disclosing them either exclu- sively in words or drawing or else conjointly in both • — while a printed publication sets forth its means by describing them. The same doctrine applies to means set forth in a prior patent or printed publication, that has been stated as applying to means comprehended under a prior knowl- edge or use, namely : what infringes if later, antici- pates when earher. Means that are set forth in a prior patent or printed pubhcation constitute an invalidation of the patented invention in question, although all the advantages of the latter are not stated in such prior patent or printed pubhcation ; and, also, although the author was not aware of the value of said means for attaining the end of the patented invention in question, provided said means had such advantage or value. 32 The point is not whether, if certain of the means that are set forth in a prior patent or printed publica- tion be omitted, persons skilled in the art could change the remaining means thereof so as to work in the man- ner and with the result of the patented invention in question ; but the point is whether all that is essential to the patented invention in question, is set forth in a prior patent or printed pubHcation. If the means that are set forth in the prior patent or printed pubHcation have imperfections only of minor character, not afPecting the substance of the patented invention in question; then they are not mere paper means, but real means — an invalidation of the patent claim in question, in view of their capacity to do successful practical work, aside from objections that would be remedied by the skill of the art. If the patented invention in question constitute a pro- cess, the claim thereon is invalidated by a prior patent or printed publication that set forth the same process, although not as applied to the same subject, in terms, that the process of the claim in question is apphed to ; provided persons skilled in the art would understand that the subject to which the process of the prior patent or printed publication was applied, is the very subject that the patented process in question is applied to. A patented invention that has proved to be a success, is not invalidated by a prior patent or printed publica- tion that set forth means having likeness to important features thereof, provided the likeness does not include the cause that resulted in said success ; and this holds even though skill of the art may in view of the patented invention in question, adapt said prior means, which before did not attain the kind of result that was first accomplislied by said invention, to accomplish some-what of the result that gave the latter its success. Likewise a patented invention is not invalidated by means set forth in a prior patent or printed publication, which means, though previously unable to, could now by a shght modification, accomplish the office of the patented invention in question; provided the prior patent or printed pubHcation was not sufficient to suggest such modification to persons skilled in the art, unless they were examining it for that purpose. In Public Use or On Sale. A patent claim is invalid if the invention that it covers was, when completed and satisfactory, in public use or on sale in our country earlier than two years before the patent application, either with or without the inventor's consent. The qualification of either experiment or secrecy places a case outside of this doctrine. No kind of use or sale in a foreign country invalidates the claim. Having reference solely to our country, one instance of the described use or one specimen of the invention invalidates the claim as effectually as could large num- bers thereof ; also the described use by only one person, even where knowledge of such use be limited to such one person, invalidates the claim as effectually as could use by la*ge numbers of persons. An invention was completed and satisfactory although not then able to at- tain its end so thoroughly as under certain other condi- tions, and was in public use although then concealed from view by certain means with which it was used ; provided it was then able to substantially attain its end, was also fifsn used without experiment in intent or in fact, and its concealment from view was such as was normally incident to its intended use. 3 34 A patent claim is invalid if its means constituted a practically useful invention without the means that are covered by another claim of the same patent, and the patent application was filed more than two years after an ordinary pubhc use in our country, for profit, of the means that are covered by the claim in question, although less than two years after a public use of the means that are covered by said other claim. But if the public use of the means that are covered by the claim in question was an experimental use, more than two years prior to the patent apphcation, such a use would not invalidate said claim ; not even though the product of such experimental use had been sold for profit, more than two years before the patent applica- tion. Because where the controlling intent of a public use, in this country earlier than two years before the patent apphcation, of the means that are covered by said claim in question, was to gain profit therefrom, the claim is invahd. This doctrine is good even though as connected Avith such use, there occurred the inventing of the means that are covered by said other claim of the same patent ; this latter invention having been made as an incident, subordinate to the principal purpose of business profit by the use of the earUer invention in question. But a patent claim is not invalid on the charge of its means having been in public use in this country earher than two years before the patent application, if said use was, in good faith and reasonable understanding, for the purpose of testing such means. This rule being apphcable even though the use was not only in public but, also, by the public, the invention being maintained 35 under the inventor's control ; and although such use was so successful and satisfactory that no change was there- after made in the means in question. Abandonment by Previous Patent. If an invention that is claimed by a patent, was disclosed in a previous patent of the same inventor, and could have been claimed therein, but was not ; then such patented invention is invalid provided there was no legal reservation of right to claim it in the subsequent patent in question, the lat- ter not being a reissue of the previous patent. Notwithstanding the application for such second patent Avas filed before the issue of, or even before the filing of the appHcation for, said first patent ; yet if the entire means of said claim be inseparable from the means that constitute any patented invention, of said first patent, such claim of the second patent is invalid. This being true even though the first patent contain a reservation of right, in terms, for said claim to be made in the second patent ; because there cannot be a reservation of right, in law, to a broad claim in the second patent, for an invention that was included by a narrow claim of the iirst patent. The foregoing not being affected even though said claim of the second patent express a certain element or function of the in- vention, not expressed by any claim of the first patent. But where an earlier patent of the same inventor was not issued until after the filing of his appHcation for a later patent, a patented invention of the latter that was lawdlully reserved from the earlier patent — such inven- tion not being involved in any patented invention of the earher patent — is not invalid because it was described in such earlier patent. 36 Sufficient Specification. There should be a degree of sufHciency in the specification of the patent in ques- tion, such that persons skilled in the art may be able to make and use the claimed invention, by following the description thereof. But it is not settled whether, ia the absence of an intention on the part of the inventor to deceive the. public, the fact that the specification has not said degree of sufficiency, does or does not consti- tute a valid defense against a suit for infringement of the patented invention. • A specification is not insuiflcient, on the charge that its description is not full enough to protect from injury the material treated by the process; provided such treatment, under qualification of the common knowl- edge of persons skilled in the art, would not be injurious to said material. Neither is a specification insufficient, on the charge that it does not describe the detail of cer- tain of its means ; provided persons skilled in the art can, from such specification, make said means in suitable detail. Nor is a specification insufficient because it does not describe the scientific theory of the claimed invention. And it is of no consequence if a specifica- tion does not describe a certain use or advantage of the claimed invention ; as the latter is impliedly patented for all its possible uses and actual advantages, even though the inventor was not aware of them. Amendment of Patent Application. A patent claim is invalid if its means be substantially different from the means that were presented to be patented by the original application for the patent ; such patent-claimed means having been introduced into the patent applica- tion, subsequently to its filing, by an amendment. But a patent claim is not invalid because the original specifi- 37 cation of its patent was amended, or because a substitute specification was filed, in patent application procedure, provided the patent-claimed means include no addition to or variance from the means that were originally applied for. A patent claim is not invahd because it was an amend- ment made by the attorney of the patent applicant, continuing to act after the latter's death — even though such attorney was not then acting under the regularly required written power of attorney — notwithstanding there was no new oath, by the administratrix ; provided said attorney had sufficient authority in fact, and his amendment, covering lawful matter within the scope of the originaUy apphed-for invention, was subsequently ratified by those in due position. Joinder of luventions. A patent is not void because a plurality of inventions are claimed therein ; provided such inventions pertain to the same subject, or are allied in their working. Doubt as to validity on this point, is resolved in favor of the patent. Different combina- tions or sub-combinations of means, each such combina- tion or sub-combination constituting a distinct invention, may be lawf uUy secured by the respective claims of a patent. A single claim may lawfully secure a certain process and, also, certain mechanism for carrying out such process. Grant of Patent. Assuming that a written instrument assigned the invention described in a patent application, and requested the patent to be granted to such assignee, and that said assignment was on record before the pat- ent was granted ; then the legal title to the patent vests in said assignee, notwithstanding the patent was granted, in terms, to the assignor. 38 If the applicant for a patent died before it was granted, and the patent was granted, in terras, to him, his heirs or assigns, the patent is not therefore invalid ; because, in law, the grant was in the alternative — to the applicant or to his heirs or to his assigns. And further, if before the grant of said patent, a party ac- quired equitable title thereto, the patent enures to his benefit, and is construed to be a grant to him as assignee, even though there was no recorded evidence of such contract, provided rights of third parties do not inter- vene. Limitation by Previous Foreign Patent. The following will be understood throughout the present title, namely : {a) If the principal invention that is covered by a pat- ent of a foreign country, be the principal invention that is covered by a subsequent patent of our country on behalf of the same inventor, the same invention is patented, respectively, by the two patents — this being true notwithstanding the foreign patent have its speci- fication and drawings more detailed than our patent, and though the latter contain improvements that are not in the foreign patent ; {h) an invention was pre- viously patented in a foreign country, under the within doctrine, if the patent of our country therefor on be- half of the same inventor Avas granted subsequently to the foreign patent, notwithstanding the application for our patent was filed previously to the foreign patent ; (c) an expiration of the term of the previous foreign patent is by lapse of time — and not by breach of a condition subsequent, under the foreign patent law; {d) a forfeiture of a part of the term of the previous foreign patent, is by non-observance of a condition sub- sequent — such as, failure of the foreign patentee to 39 comply "with a requirement of the foreign law touching any working of th« invention or any payment of either taxes or annuities. A patent of our country, granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country on behalf of the same inventor, while never in force longer than our usual patent term of seventeen years, is subject to the following limitations, namely : {a) If the foreign patent was in force when our patent was granted, then our patent expires with the expiration of the term of the foreign patent, and is not limited in its life by the forfeiture of any portion of the term of the foreign patent — or by the termination of a cer- tain period of the foreign patent, where the latter pat- ent was extended and maintained continuously in force by the patentee, under, a right subject to his option, provided for when our patent was applied for and granted; (b) if the foreign patent was not in force, being either expired or forfeited, when our patent was granted, then our patent was never in force ; (c) our patent is never invalid because not bearing same date with the foreign patent. Statutory Disclaimer. A statutory disclaimer can not lawfully substitute for an invention that is disclaim- ed thereby, an invention that is composed to any extent of means not described by the patent ; notwithstanding the substitute invention — not claimed by the patent but claimed bj'- the disclaimer — be narrower than the invention that was claimed by the patent, and that is dis- claimed by the disclaimer. This position is maintained although the substitute invention consists jointly of generic means described and specific means not de- scribed, by the patent; said generic means having con- 40 stituted the disclaimed invention, and being represented in the patent drawings as provided with said specific means. Because under all premises, a disclaimer is in- valid in so far as it claims means that are not described by the patent ; even though such disclaimer describes said means as the patent drawings show them. But if by reason of an honest mistake, a patent im- lawfuHy claimed means, that are plainly distinctive from lawfully claimed means, a disclaimer of the unlaw- fully claimed means, tiled without unreasonable delay, is valid in any one of the following instances, namely : {a) Where it cuts out such invention or inventions as may be more than one patent can lawfully cover; (5) where it expunges a claim or an independent por- tion of the specification; (c) where it narrows the breadth of a claim, or limits the field to which a claim refers. A valid disclaimer saves the lawfully claimed means of a patent from becoming invalidated, by reason of be- ing in the same patent with the unlawfully claimed means. And such lawfully claimed means are not in- validated because of the unlawfully claimed means, even though a proper disclaimer of the latter be not filed until after the commencement of suit for infringement of the lawfully claimed means ; provided there was not an unreasonable delay in such filing. A disclaimer estops the patentee from contending that the disclaimed means constitute either an invention claimed by the patent, or an equivalent for such invention. It has been held that a reissue patent is subject to the within doctrine of statutory disclaimer. It has, also, been held that a statutory disclaimer touching a reissue patent is invalid where it, by disclaiming aU and only 41 the differences between the original patent and the reis- sue patent, practically effected an abandonment of the latter patent and a resumption of the former patent. Reissue Patents. In so far as a reissue patent covers a broader invention than the original patent covered, it is invalid if either one of the following two points exists, namely : {a) If the original patent does not prove that said broader invention was tried to be covered by it ; (5) if the application for the reissue patent was not made with due diligence. Said first point exists where the means that compose said broader invention, were not described by the origi- nal patent in a way which evidenced that they were considered as constituting an invention, to be secured by the patent ; notwithstanding said means were shown in the drawings of, and were described in the specifica- tion of, and might have been lawfully claimed by, such origiual patent. The patent application record is com- petent evidence to confirm proof of the original patent, to the effect that said broader invention was not sought to be protected therein. Said second point — the appKcation for the reissue patent not having been made with due dihgence — exists where sufficiently speedy steps were not taken to ascer- tain if the original patent covered said broader inven- tion, and to file the application for the reissue patent. The character of said broader invention as witnessed by a comparison between the original and reissue pat- ents, as well as any employment of said broader inven- tion by an unlicensed party during the interval between the grant of the original patent and the application for the reissue patent, may each be involved in deter- mining what constituted sufficiently speedy steps. And 42 while in view of the foregoing premises, due diligence in making the application for the reissue patent varies with different cases — yet, generally, it is limited to some time less than two years after the grant of the original patent; so that only in a very unusual case can it extend to any time longer than said two years. And neither a patent solicitor's error that caused the original patent not to cover said broader invention, nor a legal counsel's error that caused the reissue patent not to be earlier applied for, constitutes an excuse for, or has any bearing on this point of, lack of due diligence. A reissue patented invention, broader than what the original patent covered, is not invalid under the within doctrine ; provided the original patent proves that said broader invention was tried to be covered by it, and the reissue patent application to correct such honest mistake of the original patent was made with due diligence, as these two points are herein construed. SUBJECT IV. KECOVERY FOR INFRINGEMENT. Analysis. The single question presented in consid- ering a matter wherein validity of an infringed patent claim is found, concerns the amount of a recovery for the infringement ; inasmuch as an injunction against a continuance of such infringement is regularly grantable in court procedure. There are two forms of this recov- ery : one form involving an account of the profits of the infringement ; the other form involving an assess- ment of the damages of the infringement. Infringement profits comprise the pecuniary gains or savings that the infringement caused, in the sense here- inafter described, to the infringer. And the same are transferred from him to the party that owned the pat- ent during the infringement, by the account incident to a proper suit in equity. Infringement damages — that are actual, and are thus neither nominal nor exemplary — comprise the pe- cuniary loss that the infringement caused, in the sense hereinafter described, to the party that owned the pat- ent during the infringement. And the same is returned to him from the infringer, either by the assessment in- cident to a proper suit in equity or by the assessment in an action at law. In such two procedures, one and the same doctrine obtains ; and, also, exemplary dam- ages may be awarded therein, to an amount not exceed- ing three times the actual damages. (43) u A recovery, alike in equity or at law, is founded on the premise that the infringed invention is of worth, in law. In determining this legal worth — in an account of infringement profits, cases divide into two generic classes, namely: one class presenting, and the other class not presenting, means comparable with the in- fringed invention ; while in an assessment of infringe- ment damages, cases divide into the foregoing two classes, and into a third generic class, namely : one pre- senting an estabUshed license fee. The legal worth of the infringed invention is as fol- lows, namely : {a) In the first defined class, it is the actual worth of the infringed invention, less the actual worth of any means comparable therewith — that is, it is such relative worth of the patented means ; (5) in the second defined class, it is the actual worth of the in- fringed invention — thus covering the absolute worth of the infringing means, solely due to said invention ; (c) in the third defined class, it is the established license fee. AH means are comparable with the infringed inven- tion, that were of any recognized value for doing sub- stantially the work required by the infringer, and done by the infringed invention ; provided they were known to the art in due time, and are to be considered as hav- ing been open to the infringer's use during the infringe- ment. It is not settled whether means that were not known to the art until after the grant of the patent in suit, were or were not known in due time to be com- petent as comparable means. Aside from such means as are plainly to be considered as having been open to the infringer's use during the infringement — if the owner of the patent in suit also 45 owned during the infringement, an unexpired earlier patent of our country not in suit; then the means described in such earher patent are, for the purposes of said suit, to be considered as having been open to the infringer's use during the infringement. It has been referred to but not settled, whether means that are described in an unexpired patent of our country, earlier than the patent in suit, and owned by a third party during the infringement, are or are not to be considered as having been open to the infringer's use during the infringement. The burden of proving all profits or damages of an infringement rests upon the patent owner ; they must be shown to have been profits or damages due wholly to the infringement, in distinction from any other pos- sible cause. A surrender of a patent in reissue proced- ure is an extinguishment thereof by voluntary act of its owner, in distinction from an expiration thereof by lapse of time ; and a patent that has been so surrend- ered subsequently to its infringement, cannot be a foun- dation for any infringement recovery. The infringed invention consists of aU and only the specification means that are expressly or impliedly included by the infringed claim in question, or of any known equivalent of such claimed means. The present subject treats, first, of the profits of an infringement ; and secondly, of the dam- ages of an infringement. Infringement Profits. If a court of equity acquire jurisdiction of an infringement of a patent — which can only be where there is a right for equitable relief, such as a right to an injunction against a continuance of the infringement; then said court will give certain relief additional to that for which it entertains jurisdiction 46 of the infringement, notwithstanding such additional relief constitutes a relief that would not be given if sought for alone. This additional relief includes a recov- ery of money from the infringer, the amount of which is determined by the same principle that a court of equity apphes in a case where a trustee has wrongfully used the trust property for his own interest. Said recovery involving an account of the profits derived from the wrongful act, the infringement of a vahd claim of the patent ; which account can never be had in a court of law, as distinguished from a court of equity. In the previously defined first generic class of cases — presenting means comparable with the infringed invention — the profits of the infringment include aU and only the fruits borne to the infringer, by the ad- vantage that the infringed invention had over any of the means comparable therewith. Such infringement profits are always less than the gains or savings that the infringing means effected for the infringer. It has been referred to but not settled, whether the witliin defini- tion of infringment profits in this generic class of oases, applies solely to specific cases of use ; or applies, also, to specific cases of manufacture and sale, of the infringed invention. But if the infringer used the infringing means, only in the sense that they were fitted to things made and sold by him ; then his gains or savings caused thereby, constitute profits of use of the infringed inven- tion as truly as though they had been caused by a use of the things to which the infringing means were fitted. In the previously defined second generic class of cases — not presenting means comparable with the in- fringed invention — the profits of the infringment in- clude the entire fruits borne to the infringer, by the infringed invention. •< Such infringement profits are al- ways equal to the gains or savings caused to the in- fringer, by the infringing means, wherever the infringed invention constituted the sole cause of the recognized value of such means. So that although the infringed invention was only a part of the infringing thing, yet if it was the sole cause of the latter doing the work for which it was at aU valued ; then in view of the premise that there were no means comparable with the infringed invention, all the gains or savings caused to the infringer by the infringing thing, are profits of the infringement. The remaining matter under the present title, applies alike to cases that belong to either one of the foregoing two generic classes. Inasmuch as infringement profits include only the gains or the savings that are caused to the infringer, by the legal worth of the infringed inven- tion; therefore sutjh profits exclude either patentee's or manufacturer's profits on any patented means other than those that the infringed claim in question covers, and, also, exclude manufacturer's profits on any non- patented means — irrespective of whatever degree of relation may exist between such infringing and non- infringing means, even in a process or thing essentially composed of both. But notwithstanding the infringing means may have composed a so-called improvement, pat- ented and owned by the infringer ; yet if this alleged improvement contributed nothing to the recognized value of the infringing means, then the profits of the infringment are the same as though the infringing means had not composed said improvement. The inquiry is, not as to the profits of the infringing business, but as to the profits of the infringement ; that is, as to the gains or savings caused to the infringer, by 48 the legal worth of the inf ringed invention. So no mat- ter how profitable the infringing business was, there are no infringement profits in such business profits unless the legal worth of the infringed invention contributed to the latter. And notwithstanding the infringing business resulted without net profits, yet if loss was pre- vented by reason of the legal worth of the infringed invention ; then such prevention from loss was a saving, and constitutes profits of the infringement. Also, even though the infringing business resulted in net loss, yet if the latter was the less by reason of the legal worth of the infringed invention; then such prevention from greater loss was a saving, and constitutes profits of the infringement. Loss that the infriuger suffered by a certain act of the given infringement, is not deducted from gain or saving that he made by a certain other act of the given inf riage- ment. Thus any outlay incurred by the infringer on account of experimental infringing means, does not diminish the infringement profits resulting from practi- cal infringing means ; and any expense due to defective or abandoned infringing means, does not lessen the in- fringement profits derived from perfect or valued infring- ing means. If the infringer made and sold things embodying the infringed invention, then the inquiry is as to the in- fringement profits on the sold things for which pa3nnent was recei ved by the infringer. The profits of an inf riage- nient are in nowise proved by the business profits of a party that was manufacturing the same things, at the same tune and for the same market, as was the infringer. Also, even though there Avas an established license fee, the infringement recovery in equity is not restricted 49 thereto ; but includes the entire gains or savings that \yere caused to the infringer, by reason of the infringe- ment — this position remaining even though the patent owner had never utilized said invention. It has been held that interest paid on borrowed money which was invested in the infringing business, may be allowed in favor of the infringer. But it is not settled whether interest is or is not ever to be allowed in favor of the infringer, on his capital that was employed in the infringing business. It is, however, settled that interest is not allowed in .favor of the infringer, on his plant and real estate that were used for non-infringing matters as well as for the infringing matter; where the evi- dence does not prove what profit the plant and real estate were to the infringing business, in distinction from the non-infringing business. In estimating the cost of any infringing things made and sold by the infringer, the estimate includes the raw material, together with the services and expenses of manufacturing and marketing, incident to such things \- these items to be distinguished from aU cost incident to any non-infringing things that may, also, have been made or sold by the infringer. If the infringer was a seller of non-infringing, as well as infringing, things ; then a proportionate share of the total expense of the sales of both classes of things is allowed in favor of the infringer, for the infringing things. If the infringer was a com- pany, the account allows for what were truly officers' salaries, not so extraordinary as to be really dividends of the company. Interest on infringement profits regu- larly accrues only from the date of the submission of the account, confirmed by the court ; particularly, where 4 50 the infringement was not marked by aggravative feat- ures, such as intentional unlawfulness. In a suit that grants an account of infringement prof- its, the usual principal equitable relief — to which the account of the profits of the infringement is merely an incidental relief — is an injunction against a continuance of the infringement. Therefore if the term of an in- fringed patent has expired, without equity having ac- quired jurisdiction of the infringement ; then an account of the profits of the latter can only be had, as an inci- dental relief to an unusual principal equitable relief. And if there be no sufficient ground for the latter, then an action at law, as distinguished from a suit in equity, for a recovery of the damages of the infringement, is the sole redress. Infringement Damages. In the previously defined third generic class of cases — presenting an estabhshed license fee — said fee constitutes the basis for computing the' actual damages of an infringement. So that the jimount of such fee, together with interest thereon from the time when it would have been paid for a given li- censed matter, measures the actual damages for a liie but unlicensed matter. A consideration that was paid by a party to settle an alleged infringement, is not a criterion by which to ascertain the damages of an in- fringement by another party. For in order to consti- tute an estabhshed license fee, the follovdng conditions must be satisfied, namely : The hcenses must have been voluntary contracts, without fear of htigation for any past act, and such in number and time as to evidence their market value ; the license fee must have been es- tablished before the infringement in suit, it must have been paid by a sufficient number of licensees to prove 51 general acquiescence therein, and it must have been sub- stantially the same under like circumstances. In either one of the two previously defined iirst and second generic classes of cases — not presenting an es- tabhshed License fee — competent evidence may prove the actual damages of the infringement. Such evidence embracing the worth, in law, of the infringed invention ; and the pecuniary profi.ts that the patent OAvner would have made by reason of such worth, if the infringement had not occurred. Only nominal damages being recov- ered where this evidence does not show that the infringed invention either accomplished an old work in a better way than did any means comparable therewith, or else accomplished a new work. Another instance of merely nominal damages, is that of a case where there was no license fee, no impairment of the patent owner's market and no actual damage of anj kind — an unlawful in- fringement not necessarily involving loss to the patent owner, even assuming the infringed invention to be of worth, in law ; pecuniary profits that result to the infringer, from such worth, having bearing upon the question of infringement damages, only where such profits would have been realized bj^ the patent owner if the infringement had not taken place. An instance of infringement damages being measured by the profits of the infringing business, is that of an exceptional case, where the infringed invention was the sole cause of aU sales, and of aU profits from sales, of the infringing things — and such sales and profits would have been made by the patent owner, in the absence of the infringement ; there having been no means comparable with the infringed invention, and the patent owner hav- ing granted no license to make things embodying the lat- 52 ter — but Ms business facilities having been such as would have secured and supplied the limited market for said things, if said infringement had not occurred. All instance of infringement damages being measured by the reduction in the selling price of the patent owner's things, is that of a case where he had granted no license to make things embodying the infringed invention, but made and sold things having said invention as their essential feature, and was able to have supphed the lim- ited market therefor; and the infringer, by making and selling his infringing thiags, according to the ar- rangement of the patent owner's things, for the said market at a price below the estabhshed price of the pat- ent owner, compelled the latter to reduce such estab- lished price in order to hold his trade. Such a reduction in the price of said things sold by the patent owner, constitutes damages of the infringement — said reduc- tion having been caused, neither by any infringement of a party other than the infringer in suit, nor by the general business competition of the infringer in suit, but exclusively by reason of the infringement in suit ; and such damages are recoverable solely by the patent owner, even though he had a partner in his said business. No damages are recovered for an infringement where pubhc notice of the patent was not duly given, by marking the patented thing as patented, together with the patent date — or when the patented thing does not permit such marking, by fixing to it or its inclosing pack- age, a label containing the like notice ; unless private notice of the patent and of its infringement was given by the patent owner to such infringer, and the latter there- after continued the infringement. The burden of prov ing either said constructive or said actual notice, rests 53 upon the patent owner ; and while reference has been made to, no opinion has been given, whether this law of notice applies in a case where the patent owner neither sold nor hcensed the patented thing, but personally maintained an exclusive enjoyment thereof. If an infringer's action was sufficiently aggravative, as, by bad faith, intentionally committing infringement when knowing the same to be unlawful, or causing need- less injury to the patent owner ; then the court awards exemplary damages, in its discretion, not exceeding three times the actual damages. And in the absence of such exceptional features, interest does not accrue on unliquidated actual damages — there being no estabUshed license fee. Inasmuch as no damages are assessed that were caused by any reason other than the infringement, therefore, all further question touching any means is immaterial,* regardless how closely infringing means may have been connected with non-infringing means, in operation or mechanism. A case may furnish proof of actual damages caused by the infringement, although there was no established license fee, and although the infringer made no business profits froan the infringing business. A previous recovery of iofringement dam- ages touching a given thing, does not prevent a subse- quent recovery on the latter ; unless such previous recov- ery, as adjudged and paid, comprehended the entire past and future of said thiug, within the patent term. Attorney's fees, incurred by the patent owner on account of an infringement, are not embraced in actual dam- ages of the latter. State statutory limitation applies to the bringing of an action at law for an infringement. REFERENCE TABLES. [These tables represent the field of reference, from which the condensed views of the text have been gathered as settled law. All cases, except subsequently to 147 TJ. S. 322, are those that are singly considered at length, under like titles, in the detail treatise — Hall's Patent Infringement, 1893.] SUBJECT I. LICElSrSE UNDER PATENT. License before Patent Application. McClurg V. Kingsland, 1843, 1 How. 202. Kendall v. Winsor, 1859, 21 How. 322. Hapgood V. Hewitt, 1886, 119 U. S. 226. Andrews v. Hovey, 1888, 124 U. S. 694. Wade v. Metcalf, 1889, 129 U. S. 202. Cable Grain Shovel Co. v. Flint, 1890, 137 U. S. 41. Solomons v. United States, 1890, 137 U. S. 342. Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 315. Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 1893, 150 U. S. 193. License by Recovery. Hogg V. Emerson, 1850, 11 How. 587. Suffolk Co. V. Hayden, 1866, 3 Wall. 315. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 1884, 112 U. S. 485. License in Sold Thing. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 1852, 14 How. 539. Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co., 1859, 22 How. 217. (55) 56 Bloomer v. Millinger, 1864, 1 Wall. 340. Mitchell V. Hawley, 1873, 16 Wall. 544. Adams v. Burke, 1873, 17 Wall. 453. Birdsell v. Shallol, 1884, 112 U. S. 485. Gottfried v. Miller, 1882, 104 U. S. 521. Lawtlier v. Hamilton, 1888, 124 U. S. 1. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 1894, 152 U. S. 425. License of Repair. Wilson V. Simpson, 1850, 9 How. 109. CliafEee v. Boston Belting Co., 1859, 22 How.- 217. Mitchell V. Hawley, 1873, 16 Wall. 544. Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 1882, 106 U. S. 89. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 1894, 152 IT. S. 425. Duration of License. Mitchell V. Hawley, 1873, 16 Wall. 544. Oliver v. Eumford Chemical Works, 1883, 109 U. S. 75. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 1884, 112 U. S. 485. St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 1891, 140 U. S. 184. Assignability of License. Troy Iron and Nail Factory v. Corning, 18-")2, 14 How. 193. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 1870, 9 Wall. 788. Oliver v. Eumford Chemical Works, 1883, 109 U. S. 75. Hapgood V. Hewitt, 1886, 119 U. S. 226. Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 1893, 150 U. S. 193. Annulment of License. Wilson V. Sandford, 1850, 10 How. 99. Kartell v. Tilghman, 1879, 99 U. S. 547. St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 1891, 140 U. S. 184. License by Sectional Owner. Wilson V. Rousseau, 1846, 4 How. 646. Simpson v. Wilson, 1846, 4 How. 709. Adams v. Burke, 1873, 17 Wail. 453. McKay v. Wooster, 1873. No report. ITobbio v. Jonnison, 1893, 149 U. S. 355. Koeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 1895, 157 U. S. 659. License of Foreign Law. Boescli v. Graff, 1890, 1.33 U. S. 697. 57 SUBJECT 11. IDENTITY OF INVENTIOK. Claim of Patent. Evans v. Eaton, 1822, 7 Wheat. 356. Carver v. Hyde, 1842, 16 Pet. 513. O'Keilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Brooks V. Fisko, 1853, 15 How^. 212. Seymour v. McCormick, 1856, 19 How. 96. Phillips V. Page, 1861, 24 How. 164. Vance v. Campbell, 1862, 1 Black, 427. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 531. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 579. Gould V. Eees, 1872, 15 Wall. 187. Klein v. Eussell, 1874, 19 Wall. 433. Coi-n-Planter Patent, The, 1874; 23 Wall. 181. Kussell v. Dodge, 1877, 93 U. S. 460. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 U. S. 486. Dunbar v. Myers, 1870, 94 U. S. 187. Merrill v. Yeomans, 1877, 94 U. S. 568. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 1877, 95 IT. S. 274. Schumacher v. Cornell, 1878, 96 IT. S. 549. Bates V. Coe, 1878, 98 IT. S. 31. Burns v. Meyer, 1880, 100 IT. S. 671. Water-Meter Co. v. Desper, 1880, 101 IT. S. 332. Miller v. Brass Co., 1882, i04 IT. S. 350. Matthews v. Machine Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 54. Gage V. Herring, 1883, 107 U. S. 040. Fay V. Cordesman, 1883, 109 U. S. 408. Mahn y. Harwood, 1884, 112 IT. S. 354. Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 1886, 117 U. S. 373. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 1886, 117 U. S. 554. White V. Dunbar, 1886, 119 U. S. 47. Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 1887, 121 U. S. 286. Snow V. L. S. & M. S. E. Co., 1887, 121 U. S. 617. Lawther v. Hamilton, 1888, 124 IT. S. 1. Weir V. Morden, 1888, 125 U. S. 98. Hcndy v. Golden State and Miners' Works, 1888, 127 IT. S. 370. Joyce V. Chillicothe Foundry, 1888, 127 U. S. 557. 58 Day V. Fairhaven & Westville Railway Co., 1889, 132 U. S. 98. Koemer v. BernUeim, 1889, 132 U. S. 103. Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 1890, 134 XJ. S. 388. Western Electric Co. v. La Kue, 1891, 139 U. S. 601. McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 TJ. S. 419. Grant v. Walter, 1893, 148 V. S. 547. National Meter Co. v. Tonkers Water Comrs., 1893, 149 TJ. S. 48. Wollensak v. Sargent-, 1894, 151 V. S. 221. Wriglit V. Yuengling, 1894, 155 U. S. 47. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 1894, 155 TJ. S. 286. Coupe V. Royer, 1895, 155 TJ. S. 565. Black Diamond Coal Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 1895, 156 TJ. S. 611. Specification of Patent. Prouty V. Ruggles, 1842, 16 Pet. 336. LeRoy v. Tatliam, 1852, 14 How. 156. Silsby V. Foote, 1852, 14 How. 218. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Brooks V. Fiske, 1853, 15 How. 212. Corning v. Burden, 1853, 15 How. 252. Seymour v. MoCormick, 1856, 19 How. 96. Turrill v. Railroad Co., 1864, 1 Wall. 491. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 531. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 579. Seymour v. Osborne, 1871, 11 Wall. 516. Raih-oad Co. v. Dubois, 1871, 12 Wall. 47. Mitchell V. Tilghman, 1874, 19 Wall. 287. Klein v. Russell, 1874, 19 Wall. 433. Garratt v. Seibert, 1874, 131 U. S. cxv. Halles V. VanWormer, 1874, 20 Wall. 353. Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 1874, 20 Wall. 498. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Roberts v. Ryer, 1875, 91 U. S. 150. Sewall V. Jones, 1875, 91 U. S. 171. Russell V. Dodge, 1877, 93 TJ. S. 460. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 TJ. S. 486. Fuller V. Yentzer, 1877, 94 TJ. S. 288. Merrill v. Teomans, 1877, 94 TJ. S. 568. Bates V. Coe, 1878, 98 TJ. S. 31. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 1880, 102 TJ. S. 222. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1881, 102 TJ. S. 707. 69 Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 1881, 104 U. S. 112. Heald v. Rice, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. Matthews v. Machine Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 54. Fay V. Coi'desman, 1883, 109 U. S. 408. L. S. & M. S. R. V. National Car Brake Co., 1884, 110 U. S. 229. Turner & Seymour Co. v. Dover Stamping Co., 1884, 111 U. S. 319. Rowell V. Lindsay, 1885, 113 U. S. 97. Brown v. Davis, 1886, 116 U. S. 237. Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 1886, 117 U. S. 554. White V. Dunbar, 1886, 119 U. S. 47. California Paving Co. v. Schalicke, 1886, 119 U. S. 401. Worden v. Searls, 1887, 121 U. S. 14. Snow V. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 1887, 121 U. S. 617. Lawther v. Hamilton, 1888, 124 TJ. S. 1. "Weir v. Mordeu, 1888, 125 TJ. S. 98. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Hendy V. Golden State and Miners' Works, 1888, 127 U. S. 370. Joyce V. Chillicothe Foundry, 1888, 127 U. S. 557. Sargent v. Burgess, 1889, 129 U. S. 19. Roemer v. Bernheim, 1889, 132 U. S. 103. Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 1891, 139 TJ. S. 601. Ansonia Brass Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 1892, 144 TJ. S. 11. Pope Mfg. Co. V. Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co., 1892, 144 U. S. 248. Derby v. Thompson, 1892, 146 TT. S. 476. Royer v. Coupe, 1892, 146 U. S. 524. Weatherhead v. Coupe, 1893, 147 TJ. S. 322. National Meter Co. v. Yonkers Water Comrs., 1893, 149 U. S. 48. Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 1893, 150 TJ. S. 111. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 1893, 150 TJ. S. 164. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 1894, 151 U. S. 186. WoUensak v. Sargent, 1894, 151 U. S. 221. Wright V. Tuengling, 1894, 155 TJ. S. 47. Market St. Cable Ry. Co. v. Rowley, 1895, 1-55 U. S. 621. Kecord of Patent Application. Evans v. Eaton, 1818, 3 Wheat. 454. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 1880, 102 U. S. 222. .Mfg. Co. v. Corbin, 1881, 103 U. S. 786. Sargent v. Hall Safe and Lock Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 63. Shepard v. Carrigan, 1886, 116 U. S. 593. Sutter V. Robinson, 1886, 119 U. S. 530. 60 Crawford v. Heysinger, 1887, 123 U. S. 589. McCormiok v. Graham, 1889, 129 U. S. 1. Watson v.C, I., St. L. & C. R. Co., 1889, 132 U. S. 161. Koemer v. Peddie, 1889, 132 U. S. 313. Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 1890, 133 U. S. 360. Eoyer v. Coupe, 1892, 146 U. S. 524. Leggett V. Standard Oil Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 287. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 1893, 150 U. S. 38. Knapp V. Morss, 1893, 150 U. S. 221. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 1894, 152 U. S. 425, Roller Mill Patent, The, 1895, 156 U. S. 261. Doctrine of Eqniyalents. Carver v. Hyde, 1842, 16 Pet. 513. Le Roy v. Tatham, 1852, 14 How. 156. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Brooks V. Eiske, 1853, 15 How. 212. Winans v. Denmead, 1853, 15 How. 330. McCormiok v. Talcott, 1857, 20 How. 402. Eames v. Godfrey, 1864, 1 Wall. 78. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 531. Tyler v. Boston, 1869, 7 Wall. 327. Morey v. Lookwood, 1869, 8 Wall. 230. Seymour v. Osborne, 1871, 11 Wall. 516. Railroad Co. v. Dubois, 1871, 12 Wall. 47. Gould v. Rees, 1872, 15 Wall. 187. Carlton v. Bokee, 1872, 17 Wall. 463. Mitchell V. Tilghmau, 1874, 19 Wall. 287. Washing-Maohine Co. v. Tool Co., 1874, 20 Wall. .342. Gill V. Wells, 1874, 22 Wall. 1. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Mason v. Graham, 1875, 23' Wall. 261. Wood-Paper Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 566. Roberts v. Ryer, 1875, 91 U. S. 150. Sewall V. Jones, 1875, 91 U. S. 171. Ives V. Hamilton, 1876, 92 tJ. S. 426. Fuller V. Yentzer, 1877, 94 U. S. 288. Puller V. Tentzer, 1877, 94 tJ. S. 299. Cawood Patent, 1877, 94 U. S. 695. Robertson v. Blake, 1877, 94 U. S. 728. Cochrane v. Deeuer, 1877, 94 U. S. 780. 61 Eddy V. Dennis, 1S11, 95 U. S. 560. Werner v. King, IS?"?, 96 U. S. 218. Machine Co. v. Murphy, 1878, 97 U. S. 120. Marsh v. Seymour, 1878, 97 U. S. 348. Kail way Co. v. Sayles, 1878, 97 U. S. 554. Bates V. Coe, 1878, 98 U. S. 31. Water-Meter Co. v. Desper, 1880, 101 TJ. S. 332. Imhaeuser v. Buerlc, 1880, 101 U. S. 647. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 1880, 102 U. S. 222. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1881, 102 U. S. 707. Wicke V. Ostrum, 1881, 103 U. S. 461. Stow V. Chicago, 1882, 104 U. S. 547. Heald v. Eice, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. Matthews v. Machine Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 54. Bridge v. Excelsior Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 618. Clough V. Barker, 1882, 106 U. S. 166. Hoffheins v. Kussell, 1883, 107 U. S. 132. Duee V. Sterling Pump Co., 1883, 107 U. S. 636. Gage V. Herring, 1883, 107 U. S. 640. Fay V. Cordesman, 1883, 109 U. S. 408. Zane v. Soffe, 1884, 110 U. S. 200. McMurray v. Mallory, 1884, 111 U. S. 97. Union Cartridge Co. v. U. S. Cartridge Co., 1884, 112 U. S. 624. Eowell V. Lindsay, 1885, 113 U. S. 97. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1885, 113 U. S. 157. Blake v. San Francisco, 1885, 113 U. S. 679. Electric Railroad Signal Co. v. Hall Signal Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 87. Brown v. Davis, 1886, 116 U. S. 237. Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 1886, 117 U. S. 373. Cantrell v. Wallick, 1886, 117 U. S. 689. Newton v. Purst & Bradley Co., 1886, 119 U. S. 373. California Paving Co. v. Sohalicke, 1886, 119 U. S. 401. Grier v. Wilt, 1887, 120 U. S. 412. Plummer v. Sargent, 1887, 120 U. S. 442. Worden v. Searls, 1887, 121 U. S. 14. Bragg v. Pitch, 1887, 121 U. S. 478. Crawford v. Heysinger, 1887, 123 U. S. 589. Dryfoos v. Wiese, 1888, 124 V. S. 32. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Forncrook v. Boot, 1888, 127 U. S. 176. 62 Moiley Sewing Machiae Co. v. Lancaster, 1889, 129 U. S. 263. Bene v. Jeantet, 1889, 129 U. S. 683. Brown v. District of Columbia, 1889, 130 U. S. 87. Hurlbut V. Schillinger, 1889, 130 U. S. 456. Brush V. Condit, 1889, 132 U. S. 39. Watson V. C, I., St. L. & C. E. Co., 1889, 132 U. S. 161. Phcenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 1890, 133 U. S. 360. Hoff V. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 1891, 139 U. S. 326. Western Electric Co. v. La Kue, 1891, 139 U. S. 601. St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 1891, 140 U. S. 184. Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 1891, 140 U. S. 481. Pope Mfg. Co. V. Gormiilly & Jeffrey Co., 1892, 144 U. S. 238. Sessions v. Eomadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Hoyt V. Home, 1892, 145 U. S. 302. Derby v. Thompson, 1892, 146 U. S. 476. Weatherhead v. Coupe, 1893, 147 U. S. 322. Dobson V. Cubley, 1893, 149 TJ. S. 117. Gordon v. Warder, 1893, 150 U. S. 47. Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 1893, 150 U. S. 111. Knapp V. Morss, 1893, 150 U. S. 221. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 1894, 151 U. S. 186. Gates Iron Works v. Fraser, 1894, 153 U. S. 332. Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 1894, 154 U. S. 103. Wright V. Yuengling, 1894, 155 U. S. 47. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 1894, 155 U. S. 286. Potts V. Creager, 1895, 155 U. S. 597. Koller Mill Patent, The, 1895, 156 U. S. 261. National Cash Register Co. v. Boston Co., 1895, 156 TJ. S. 502. Black Diamond Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 1895, 156 U. S. Oil. SUBJECT III. VALIDITY OF PATENT. Sug'gesliou about Invention. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 1869, 7 Wall. 583. Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 1875, 23 Wall. 530. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1883, 107 TJ. S. 192. 63 Date of Invention. P. & T. E. Co. V. Stimpson, 1840, 14 Pet. 448. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Klein v. Eussell, 1874, 19 "Wall. 433. Bates V. Coe, 1878, 98 U. S. 31. Worley v. Tobacco Co., 1882, 104 TJ. S. 340. Loom Co. V. Higgins, 1882, 105 U. S. 580. Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Lineu Co., 1891, 140 U. S. 481. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 U. S. 587. Skill of the Art. Hotohkiss V. Q-reenwood, 1850, 11 How. 248. Stimpson v. Woodman, 1870, 10 Wall. 117. Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 1874, 20 Wall. 498. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 1875, 23 Wall. 530. Eeckendorfer v. Faber, 1876, 92 U. S. 347. Cochrane v. Deener, 1877, 94 U. S. 780. Gilbert & Barker Co. v. Walworth Co., 1879, 12 Brodix, 281. Pearce v. Mulford, 1880, 102 U. S. 112. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1883, 107 U. S. 192. Double Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Elvers Co., 1883, 109 U. S. 117. Phillips V. Detroit, 1884, 111 U. S. 604. HoUister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., 1885, 113 U. S. 59. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1885, 113 TJ. S. 157. Thompson v. Boisselier, 1885, 114 U. S. 1. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 1886, 117 U. S. 554. Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 1886, 119 U. S. 335. Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 1887, 119 IT. S. 664. New Process Fermentation Co. v. Maus, 1887, 122 U. S. 413. Lawther v. Hamilton, 1888, 124 XT. S. 1. Munson v. Mayor of New York, 1888, 124 IT. S. 601. Mosler Safe & Lock Co. v. Mosler, 1888, 127 U. S. 354. Heudy v. Golden State & Miners' Works, 1888, 127 U. S. 370. Holland v. Shipley, 1888, 127 IT. S. 396. Peters v. Hanson, 1889, 129 U. S. 541. Collins Co. v. Coes, 1889, 130 U. S. 56. Brown v. District of Columbia, 1889, 130 IT. S. 87. Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 1889, 130 IT. S. 626. Watson v. C, L, St. L. & C. E. Co., 1889, 132 U. S. 161. 04 Hill V. Wooster, 1890, 132 U. S. 693. Butler V. Steckel, 1890, 137 U. S. 21. Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 1891, 139 U. S. 601. Magowan v. N. T. Belting & Packing Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 332. McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 U. S. 419. Myers v. Groom Shovel Co., 1891, 141 V. S. 674. Barbed Wire Patent, The, 1892, 143 U. S. 275. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 U. S. 587. Pope Mfg. Co. V. Gormully & Jeffery Co., 1892, 144 U. S. 234. Sessions v. Romadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Toplife V. ToplifE, 1892, 145 V. S. 156. Ryan v. Hard, 1892, 145 U. S. 241 Derby v. Thompson, 1892, 146 U. S. 476. Lowell Mfg. Co. V. Gary, 1893, 147 U. S. 623. N;Vbional Hat Pouncing Co. v. Hedden, 1893, 148 U. S. 482. Krementz v. The S. Cottle Co., 1893, 148 U. S. 536. Duer V. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 216. Underwood v. Gerber, 1893, 149 V. S. 224. Leggett V. Standard Oil Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 287. Brigham v. Coffin, 1893, 149 U. S. 557. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 1893, 150 U. S. 38. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 1893, 150 U. S. 164. Magin v. Karle, 1893, 150 U. S. 387. Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 1894, 151 U. S. 139. Wollensak v. Sargent, 1894, 151 U. S. 221. Plaughey v. Lee, 1894, 151 U. S. 282. Sargent v. Covert, 1894, 152 U. S. 516. Seabury v. Am. Ende, 1894, 152 U. S. 561. Gates Iron Works v. Eraser, 1894, 153 U. S. 332. Olin V. Timken, 1894, 155 IT. S. 141. Substitution of Material. Hotchkiss V. Greenwood, 1850, 11 How. 248. Hicks V. Kelsey, 1874, 18 Wall. 670. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 U. S. 486. Terhune v. Phillips, 1879, 99 U. S. 592. Gardner v. Herz, 1886, 118 U. S. 180. Brown v. District of Columbia, 1889, 130 U. S. 87. Florsheim v. Schilling, 1890, 137 U. S. 64. Hoil v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 1891, 139 U. S. 326. Potts V. Creager, 1893, 135 U. S. 597. Co Degree. Phillips V. Page, 1861, 24 How. 164. Smith V. Nichols, 1875, 21 "Wall. 112. Koberts v. Eyer, 1875, 91 U. S. 150. Dalton V. Jennings, 1876, 93 U. S. 271. Glue Co. V. Upton, 1878, 97 U. S. 3. Planing-Maohine Co. v. Keith, 1880, 101 U. S. 479. Crouch V. Roemer, 1881, 103 U. S. 797. Stow V. Chicago, 1882, 104 U. S. 547. Guidet V. Brooklyn, 1882, 105 U. S. 550. Estey V. Burdett, 1884, 109 U. S. 633. Preston v. Manard, 1886, 116 U. S. 661. Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 1886, 119 TJ. S. 335. Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 1889, 129 U. S. 530. Brush V. Condit, 1889, 132 U. S. 39. Burt T. Evory, 1890, 133 U. S. 349. French v. Carter, 1890, 137 U. S. 239. Busell Trimmer Co. v. Stevens, 1890, 137 U. S. 423. International Tooth Crown Co. v. Gaylord, 1891, 140 U. S. 55. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 U. S. 587. Ansonia Brass Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 1892, 144 U. S. 11. Lowell Mfg. Co. V. Cary, 1893, 147 U. S. 623. Grant v. Walter, 1893, 148 U. S. 547. Leggett V. Standard Oil Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 287. Belding Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 1894, 152 tJ. S. 100. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 1894, 152 U. S. 425. Wright v. Tuengling, 1894, 155 U. S. 47. Market St. Cable Ky. Co. v. Eowley, 1895, 155 U. S. 621. Analogous Use. Phillips V. Page, 1861, 24 How. 164. Jones V. Morehead, 1864, 1 Wall. 155. Tucker v. Spalding, 1872, 13 Wall. 453. Brown v. Piper, 1875, 91 U. S. 37. Koberts v. Eyer, 1875, 91 U. S. 150. Dunbar v. Myers, 1876, 94 V. S. 187. Mfg. Co. V. Ladd, 1880, 102 U. S. 408. Vinton v. Hamilton, 1882, 104 U. S. 485. Stow V. Chicago, 1882, 104 TJ. S. 547, Heald v. Rice, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. 5 66 Hall V. Macneale, 1883, 107 U. S. 90. Slawson v. Grand Sti-eet Railroad Co., 1883, 107 IT. S. 649. King V. Gallun, 1883, 109 U. S. 99. Bussey v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 1884, 110 U. S. 131. Pennsylvania Ky. v. Locomotive Truck Co., 1884, 110 U. S. 490. Morris v. McMillin, 1884, 112 U. S. 244. Blalce V. San Francisco, 1885, 113 U. S. 679. Stephenson v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 149. Miller v. Foree, 1885, 116 U. S. 22. Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 1887, 123 U. S. 582. Dreyfus v. Searle, 1888, 124 U. S. 60. Weir V. Morden, 1888, 125 U. S. 98. Crescent Brewing Co. v. Gottfried, 1888, 128 U. S. 158. Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 1889, 129 U. S. 530. Peters v. Hanson, 1889, 129 U. S. 541. Day V. Fairliaven & Westville Railway Co., 1889, 132 U. S. 98. Royer v. Roth, 1889, 132 U. S. 201. Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 1890, 134 U. S. 388. St. Germain v. Brunswick, 1890, 135 U. S. 227. Fond Du Lac County v. May, 1890, 137 U. S. 395. Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 1891, 139 U. S. 601. Patent Clothing Co. v. Glover, 1891, 141 U. S. 560. Ansouia Brass Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 1892, 144 U. S. 11. Lowell Mfg. Co. V. Cary, 1893, 147 U. S. 623. Grant v. Walter, 1893, 148 U. S. 547. Knapp V. Morss, 1893, 150 U. S. 221. WoUensak v. Sargent, 1894, 151 U. S. 221. Potts V. Creager, 1895, 155 U. S. 597. National Cask Register Co. v. Boston Co., 1895, 156 V . S. 502. Legitimate Combination. Hailes v. Van Worraer, 1874, 20 Wall. 353. Gill V. Wells, 1874, 22 Wall. 1. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Dane v. Chicago Mfg. Co., 1875, 131 U. S. cxxvi. Reckendorfer v. Faber, 1876, 92 U. S. 347. Fuller v. Yentzer, 1877, 94 TJ. S. 299. Rubber-Coated Harness-Trimming Co. v. Welling, 1878, 97 U. S. 7. Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 1878, 97 U. S. 126. Bates v. Coe, 1878, 98 U. S. 31. Tmhaeuser v. Buerk, 1880, 101 U. S. 647. 67 Parks V. Booth, 1880, 102 TT. S. 96. Pickering v. McCuUough, 1881, 104 U. S. 310. Packing Oo. Cases, 1882, 105 U. S. 563. Loom Co. V. Higgins, 1882, 105 U. S. 580. Double Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Co., 188-3, 109 U. S. 117. Bussey v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 1884, 110 XT. S. 131. Stephenson v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 149. Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 523. Cantrell v. Wallick, 1886, 117 U. S. 689. Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 1887, 121 U. S. 286. Hendy v. Golden State and Miners' Works, 1888, 127 IT. S. 370. Royer v. Roth, 1889, 132 U. S. 201. Florsheim v. Schilling, 1890, 137 U. S. 64.. Fond Du Lao County v. May, 1890, 137 tJ. S. 395. Union Edge Setter Co. v. Keith, 1891, 139 U. S. 530. Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 539. Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 1892, 146 U. S. 515. Knapp V. Morss, 1893, 150 TJ. S. 221. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 1894, 152 U. S. 425. Wright v. Yuengling, 1894, 155 V. S. 47. Palmer v. Corning, 1895, 156 U. S. 342. Usefulness. Carver v. Hyde, 1842, 16 Pet. 513. Le Roy v. Tatham, 1852, 14 How. 156. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Corning v. Burden, 1853, 15 How. 252. Le Roy v. Tatham, 1860, 22 How. 132. Burr v. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 531. Whiteley v. Swayue, 1869, 7 Wall. 685. Mitchell V. Tilghman, 1874, 19 Wall. 287. Klein v. Russell, 1874, 19 Wall. 433. Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 1874, 20 Wall. 498. Smith V. G-oodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 U. S. 486. Robertson v. Blake, 1877, 94 U. S. 728. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1881, 102 U. S. 707. Loom Co. V. Higgins, 1882, 105 U. S. 580. HolHster v. Benedict & Buruham Mfg. Co., 1883, 113 IT. S. 59. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1883, 113 U. S. 157. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 1891, 139 XT. S. 001, 68 Magowan v. ?f. Y. Belting & Packing Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 332. McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 U. S. 419. Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 539. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 U. S. 587. Sessions v. Romadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Topliff V. ToplifE, 1892, 145 U. S. 156. Derby v. Thompson, 1892, 146 U. S. 476. Lowell Mfg. Co. V. Cary, 1893, 147 U. S. 623. National Hat Pouncing Co. v. Hedden, 1893, 148 U. S. 482. Grant v. Walter, 1893, 148 U. S. 547. Krementz v. The S. Cottle Co., 1893, 148 U. S. 556. Duer V. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 216. Gordon v. Warder, 1893, 150 U. S. 47. Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 1894, 151 U. S. 139. Jliiler V. Eagle Mfg. Co., 1894, 151 U. S. 186. Oiin V. Timken, 1894, 155 U. S. 141. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 1894, 155 IT. S. 286. Potts V. Creager, 1895, 155 U. S. 597. Prior Knowledge or Use. Gayler v. Wilder, 1850, 10 How. 477. Appleton V. Bacon, 1862, 2 Black, 699. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 1869, 7 Wall. 583. Whiteley v. Swayne, 1869, 7 Wall. 685. Seymour v. Osborne, 1871, 11 Wall. 516. Coffin V. Ogden, 1874, 18 Wall. 120. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Wood-Paper Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 566. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 U. S. 486. Cawood Patent, 1877, 94 U. S. 695. Marsh v. Seymour, 1878, 97 IT. S. 348. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 1878, 97 U. S. 554. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1881, 102 U. S. 707. Clough V. Barker, 1882, 106 IT. S. 166. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1885, 113 IT. S. 157. Miller v. Force, 1885, 116 U. S. 22. Brown v. Davis, 1886, 116 IT. S. 237. Cantrell v. Wallick, 1886, 117 U. S. 689. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 IT. S. 1. Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 1889, 129 U. S. 530. Brush v. Condit, 1889, 132 U. S. 39. 69 Barbed Wire Patent, The, 1892, 143 IT. S. 275. Ansonia Brass Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 1892, 144 TJ. S. 11 ToplifE V. Toplife, 1892, 145 U. S. 156. Ide V. Ball Engine Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 550. Knapp V. Morss, 1893, 150 U. S. 221. Magin v. Karle, 1893, 150 U. S. 387. Giles V. Heysinger, 1893, 150 U. S. 627. Deering v. Winona Harvester Works, 1894, 155 U. S. 286. Potts V. Creager, 1895, 155 U. S. 597. Prior Foreign Knowledge or Use. Gayler v. Wilder, 1850, 10 How. 477. O'Keilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Eoemer v. Simon, 1877, 95 IT. S. 214. Hurlbut V. Schillinger, 1889, 130 IT. S. 456. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 IT. S. 587. Prior Patent or Printed Publication. Whiteley v. Swayne, 1869, 7 Wall. 685. Seymour v. Osborne, 1871, 11 Wall. 516. Colin V. U. S. Corset Co., 1876, 93 IT. S. 366. Cawood Patent, 1877, 94 IT. S. 695. Cochrane v. Deener, 1877, 94 IT. S. 780. Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 1878, 97 U. S. 126. Bates V. Coe, 1878, 98 U. S. 31. Parks V. Booth, 1880, 102 U. S. 96. Pickering v. McCullough, 1881, 104 IT. S. 310. Stow v. Chicago, 1882, 104 U. S. 547. Heald v. Rice, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. Downton v. Teager Milling Co., 1883, 108 IT. S. 466. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1885, 113 IT. S. 157. TopUfE V. ToplifE, 1892, 145 U. S. 156. National Hat Pouncing Co. v. Heddeu, 1893, 148 IT. S. 482. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 1893, 150 U. S. 164. Knapp v. Morss, 1893, 150 U. S. 221. Miller v. Eagle Mfg Co., 1894, 151 U. S. 186. Wright v. Yuengling, 1894, 155 U. S. 47. In Public Use or On Sale. Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 1877, 94 IT. S. 92. Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 1878, 97 U. S. 126. 70 Parks V. Booth, 1880, 102 U. S. 96. Egbert v. Lippmann, 1881, 104 U. S. 333. Worley v. Tobacco Co., 1882, 104 U. S. 340i Hall V. Macneale, 1883, 107 U. S. 90. Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 1883, 108 U. S. 462. Beedle v. Bennett, 1887, 122 U. S. 71. Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 1887, 123 U. S. 249. Andrews v. Hovey, 1887, 123 U. S. 267. Andrews v. Hovey, 1888, 124 U. S. 694. International Tooth Crown Co. v. Gaylord, 1891, 140 U. S. 55. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 1892, 143 U. S. 587. Boot T. Third Ave. K. Co., 1892, 146 U. S. 210. Abandonment by Previons Patent. Suffolk Co. V. Hayden, 1866, 3 Wall. 315. Corn-Planter Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 181. Merrill v. Teomans, 1877, 94 U. S. 568. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 1877, 95 XJ. S. 274. Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 1878, 98 U. S. 126. James v. Campbell, 1881, 104 U. S. 356. Mahn v. Harwood, 1884, 112 U. S. 354. Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 1887, 123 TJ. S. 87. McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 459. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 1894, 151 U. S. 186. Sufficient Specification. Grant v. Raymond, 1832, 6 Pet. 218. Wood V. Underhill, 1847, 6 How. 1. LeEoy V. Tatham, 1852, 14 How. 156. O'Eeilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Tyler v. Boston, 1869, 7 Wall. 327. Mowry v. Whitney, 1872, 14 Wall. 620. Mitchell V. Tilghman, 1874, 19 Wall. 287. Klein v. Russell, 1874, 19 Wall. 433. Sewall V. Jones, 1875, 91 U. S. 171. Ives V. Hamilton, 1876, 92 U. S. 426. Merrill v. Yeoraans, 1877, 94 U. S. 568. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1881, 102 U. S. 707. Stow v. Chicago, 1882, 104 U. S. 547. Heald v. Rice, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. Matthews v. Machine Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 54. 71 Loom Co. V. Hlggins, 1882, 105 U. S. 580. Consolidated Valve Co. v. Crosby Gauge Co., 1885, 113 U. S. 157. Western Electric Co. v. Ansonia Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 447. Eanies v. Andrews, 1887, 122 U. S. 40. Lawther v. Hamilton, 1888, 124 TJ. S. 1. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Bene v. Jeantet, 1889, 129 U. S. 683. Brown v. District of Columbia, 1889, 130 U. S. 87, Koemer v. Bernlieim, 1889, 132 U. S. 103. Howard t. Detroit Stove Works, 1893, 150 U. S. 164. Seabury v. AmEnde, 1894, 152 U. S. 561. Amendment of Patent Application. Godfrey v. Eames, 1864, 1 Wall. 317. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 1878, 97 U. S. 554. EagletonMfg. Co. v. West, Bradley & Carey Co., 1884, 111 U. S. 490. De La Vergne Refrigerating Co. v. Featherstone, 1893, 147 U. S. 209. Joinder of Inrentions, Hogg V. Emerson, 1848, 6 How. 437. Hogg V. Emerson, 1850, 11 How. 587. Bennett v. Fowler, 1869, 8 Wall. 445. Garratt v. Seibert, 1874, 131 U. S. cxv. Merrill v. Teomans, 1877, 94 U. S. 568. Bates T. Coe, 1878, 98 U. S. 31. Parks V. Booth, 1880, 102 XJ. S. 96. Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 1887, 123 U. S. 249. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Grant of Patent. Gayler v. Wilder, 1850, 10 How. 477. Littlefield v. Perry, 1875, 21 Wall. 205. De La Vergne Refrigerating Co. v. Featherstone, 1893, 147 U. S. 209. Limitation by Previous Foreign Patent. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Smith V. Ely, 1853, 15 How. 137. Siemens v. Sellers, 1887, 123 U. S. 276. Telephone Cases, The, 1888, 126 U. S. 1. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, 1889, 129 U. S. 151. Pohl V. Anchor Brewing Co., 1890, 134 U. S. 381. n Commercial Mfg. Co. v. Fairbank Canning Co., 1890, 135 U. S. 176. Huber v. Nelson Mfg. Co., 1893, 148 U. S. 270. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 1895, 157 U. S. 1. Statutory Disclaimer. Silsby V. Foote, 1852, 14 How. 218. O'Keilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Seymour v. McCormiok, 1856, 19 How. 96. Silsby V. Foote, 1857, 20 How. 378. Smith V. Nichols, 1875, 21 Wall. 112. Dunbar v. Myers, 1876, 94 U. S. 187. Gage V. Herring, 1883, 107 U. S. 640. McMurray v. Mallory, 1884, 111 U. S. 97. Union Cartridge Co. v. IT.'s. Cartridge Co., 1884, 112 U. S. 624. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 1886, 117 U. S. 536. Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 1887, 123 U. S. 582. Hurlbut V. Sohillinger, 1889. 130 TJ. S. 456. Sessions v. Romadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Grant v. Walter, 1893, 148 U. S. 547. Reissue Patents. P. & T. R. Co. V. Stimpsou, 1840, 14 Pet. 448. Stimpson v. W. C. R. Co., 1846, 4 How. 380. O'Reilly v. Morse, 1853, 15 How. 62. Brooks V. Fiske, 1853, 15 How. 212. Battin v. Taggert, 1854, 17 How. 74. Burr V. Duryee, 1864, 1 Wall. 531. Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 1867, 4 Wall. 522. Morey v. Lockwood, 1869, 8 Wall. 230. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 1870, 9 Wall. 788. Seymour v. Osborne, 1871, 11 Wall. 516. Littlefleld v. Perry, 1875, 21 Wall. 205. Gill V. Wells, 1874, 22 Wall. 1. Collar Co. v. VanDusen, 1875, 23 Wall. 530. Wood-Paper Patent, The, 1874, 23 Wall. 566. Russell V. Dodge, 1877, 93 U. S. 460. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 1877, 93 U. S. 486. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 1877, 95 U. S. 274. Marsh v. Seymour, 1878, 97 U. S. 348. Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 1878, 98 U. S. 126. Leggett V. Avery, 1880, 101 U. S. 256. 73 Ball V. Langles, 1880, 102 U. S. 128. Garneau v. Dozler, 1880, 102 TJ. S. 230. Mfg. Co. V. Ladd, 1880, 102 U. S. 408. Miller v. Brass Co., 1882, 104 U. S. 350. James v. Campbell, 1881, 104 TJ. S. 356. Heald v. Kioe, 1882, 104 U. S. 737. Matthews v. Machine Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 54. Bantz V. Prantz, 1882, 105 U. S. 160. Johnson v. Railroad Co., 1882, 105 TJ. S. 539. Gosling V. Roberts, 1882, 106 U. S. 39. Wing V. Anthony, 1882, 106 U. S. 142. Moffitt V. Rogers, 1882, 106 U. S. 423. Hoffheins v. Russell, 1883, 107 U. S. 132. Gage V. Herring, 1883, 107 U. S. 640. Clements v. Odorless Excavating Co., 1884, 109 U. S. 641. MoMurray v. Mallory, 1884, 111 V. S. 97. Cochrane v. Badisuhe Auilin Fabrik, 1884, 111 U. S. 293. Turner & Seymour Co. v. Dover Stamping Co., 1884, 111 XT. S. 319. Malm V. Harwood, 1884, 112 U. S. 354. Torrent Arms Co. v. Rodgers, 1884, 112 U. S. 659. Coon V. "Wilson, 1885, 113 U. S. 268. Thomson v. Woos-ter, 1885, 114 U. S. 104. Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 1885, 114 U. S. 523. WoUensak v. Reiher, 1885, 115 U. S. 96. Eachus V. Broomall, 1885, 115 U. S. 429. Brown v. Davis, 1886, 116 U. S. 237. Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 1886, 117 U. S. 536. Gardner v. Herz, 1886, 118 U. S. 180. White V. Dunbar, 1886, 119 U. S. 47. Newton v. Furst & Bradley Co., 1886, 119 U. S. 373. Ives V. Sargent, 1887, 119 U. S. 652. Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., 1887, 119 U. S. 664. Worden v. Searls, 1887, 121 U. S. 14. Eames v. Andrews, 1887, 122 XJ. S. 40. Parker & Whipple Co. v. Tale Clock Co., 1887, 123 U, S. 87. Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 1887, 123 tJ. S. 582. Matthews v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., 1888, 124 U. S. 347. Hoskin v. Fisher, 1888, 125 U. S. 217. Cornell v. Weidner, 1888, 127 U. S. 261. Flower v. Detroit, 1888, 127 U. S. 563. T4 Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn-Planter Co., 1888, 128 U. S. 506, Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 1889, 129 U. S. 294. Hurlbut V. Sohillinger, 1889, 130 U. S. 456. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Bank, 1890, 135 U. S. 342. Dobson V. Lees, 1890, 137 U. S. 258. Electric Lighting Co. v. Boston Electric Co., 1891, 139 U. S. 481. ToplifE v. ToplifiE, 1892, 145 U. S. 156. Freeman v. Asmus, 1892, 145 U. S. 226. Huber v. Nelson Mfg. Co., 1893, 148 U. S. 270. Leggett V. Standard Oil Co., 1893, 149 U. S. 287. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 1893, 150 U. S. 38. Wolleusak v. Sargent, 1894, 151 U. S. 221. Dunham V. Dennison Mfg. Co., 1894, 154 U. S. 103. Olin V. Timken, 1894, 155 U. S. 141. SUBJECT IV. KECOVERT FOR INFRING-EMENT. Infringement Proflts. Dean v. Mason, 1857, 20 How. 198. Silsby V. Foote, 1857, 20 How. 378. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 1870, 9 Wall. 788. Mowry v. Whitney, 1872, 14 Wall. 620. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 1874, 19 Wall. 611. Littlefleld v. Perry, 1875, 21 Wall. 205. Mason v. Graham, 1875, 23 Wall. 261. Keedy v. Scott, 1875, 23 Wall. 332. Tremolo Patent, The, 1875, 23 Wall. 518. Burden v. Deuig, 1876, 92 U. S. 716. Cawood Patent, 1877, "94 U. S. 695. Mevs V. Conover, 1877, 131 tJ. S. cxLii. Robertson v. Blake, 1877, 94 U. S. 728. Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 1878, 97 U. S. 126. I'arks V. Booth, 1880, 102 U. S. 96. Root V. Railway Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 189. Mfg. Co. V. Cowing, 1882, 103 TJ. S. 253. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Turrill, 1884, 110 U. S. 301. Garretson v. Clark, 1884, 111 U. S. 120. T5 Black V. Thorne, 1884, 111 IT. S. 122. Thomson v. Wooster, 1885, 114 U. S. 104. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1888, 125 U. S. 136. Hurlbut V. Scliillinger, 1889, 130 U. S. 456. Crosby Gauge Co. v. Consolidated Valve Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 441. McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 1891, 141 TJ. S. 459. Sessions v. Komadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 1894, 151 U. S. 139. Seabury v. Am Ende, 1894, 152 U. S. 561. Warren v. Keep, 1894, 155 U. S. 265. Coupe V. Royer, 1895, 155 U. S. 565. Infringement Damages. Hogg V. Emerson, 1850, 11 How. 587. Corning v. Burden, 1853, 15 How. 252. Livingston v. Woodworth, 1853, 15 How. 546. Seymour v. McCormick, 1853, 16 How. 480. Dean v. Mason, 1857, 20 How. 198. Tcese v. Huntingdon, 1860, 23 How. 2. Kow York v. Eansom, 1860, 23 How. 487. Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 1866, 3 Wall. 315. Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 1869, 7 Wall. 583. Mowry v. Whitney, 1872, 14 Wall. 620. Philp v. Nock, 1873, 17 Wall. 460. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 1874, 19 Wall. 611. lleedy v. Scott, 1875, 23 Wall. 352. Burden v. Denig, 1876, 92 U. S. 716. Birdsall v. Coolidge, 1876, 93 U. S. 64. Robertson v. Blake, 1877, 94 U. S. 728. Marsh v. Seymour, 1878, 97 U. S. 348. Parks V. Booth, 1880, 102 U. S. 96. Root V. Railway Co., 1882, 105 U. S. 189. Garretson v. Clark, 1884, 111 U. S. 120. Black V. Thorne, 1884, 111 U. S. 122. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 1884, 112 U. S. 485. Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 1886, 117 U. S. 536. Clark V. Wooster, 1886, 119 U. S. 322. Tilghman v. Proctor, 1888, 125 U. S. 136. Rude V. Westcott, 1889, 130 V. S. 152. Cornely v. Marckwakl, 1889, 1:31 U. S. 159. Boesoh V. Graff, 1890, 133 U. S. 697. T6 Crosby Gauge Co. v. Consolidated Valve Co., 1891, 141 U. S. 441. Sessions v. Komadka, 1892, 145 U. S. 29. Topliffi V. ToplifE, 1892, 145 U. S. 156. Dunlap V. Sohofield, 1894, 152 U. S. 244. Coupe V. Koyer, 1895, 155 U. S. 565. Campbell v. Haverhill, 1895, 155 U. S. 010. INDEX. [The four brief expressions herein used, will be understood aa referring, respectively, to the corresponding subjects of the text, namely: In re License, referring to the question whether the given means be licensed under the patent in question; in re Identity, referring to the question whether the given means be, in law, the same as the patented invention in question; in re Validity, referring to the question whether the patented invention in ques- tion be valid; in re Recovery, referring to the question of the sum that may be recovered for the unlawful infringement in question.] Page Abandoned prior means, in re Validity 29 Abandonment by previous patent, in re Validity 35 Accident of prior means, in re Validity 30 Account of infringement profits, in re Recovery 43 Advantages of claimed means, in re Identity 18 Advantages of claimed means, in re Validity 36 Advantages of prior means, in re Validity 28 Advantages of prior patent means, in re Validity 31 Advantages of prior publication means, in re Validity 31 Aggregation of means, in re Validity 24 Agreement to make patented invention, in re License 3 Amendment of patent application, in re Identity 11 Amendment of patent application, in re Validity 36 Analogous use of patented means, in re Identity 18 Analogous use of patented means, in re Validity 24 Analogous use of prior means, in re Validity 23 Annulment of license, in re License 6 Application, Amendment of patent, in re Identity 11 Application, Diligence as to reissue, in re Validity 41 Application for patent on prior means, in re Validity 29 Application, Eecord of patent, in re Identity 11 Application, Sale before patent, in re Validity 33 (77) 78 Page Application, Use before patent, in re Validity 33 Art, Definition of prior state of the 13 Art, Prior state of the, in re Identity 14 Art, Skill of the, in re Validity 21 Assessment of infringement damages, in re Kecovery 43 Assignability of license, in re License 6 Assignment of invention, in re Validity 3Y Attainment of objects of claimed means, in re Identity 18 Attorney, Amendment by, in re Validity 37 Attorney, Error of, in re Validity 42 Attorney's fees not actual damages in re Recovery 53 Burden of proof, in re Recovery 45 Burden of proof, in re Validity 29 Cancellation of patent application matter, in re Identity 12 Cancellation of license, in re License 6 Claim, Amendment of, in re Identity 12 Claim, Amendment of, in re Validity 36 Claim of patent, in re Identity 9 Claimed and patented invention, in re Identity 15 Combination, Equivalent as to, in re Identity 17 Combination, Legitimate, in re Validity 24 Commercial success of invention, in re Validity 27 Continuance of infringement. Relief against 43 Damages, Attorney's fees not actual, in re Recovery 53 Damages, Definition of infringement, in re Recovery 43 Damages, Exemplary infringement, in re Recovei-y 53 Damages, Infringement, in re Recovei-y 50 Damages, Interest on infringement, in re Recovery 53 Damages, License by recovery of, in re License 4 Damages, Nominal infringement, in re Recovery 51 Damages of infringement, further see Recovery Date of invention, in re Validity 21 Death of licensee, in re Licensee 6 Death of patent applicant, in re Va,lidity 38 Degree, in re Validity 23 Degree, Equivalency as to, in re Identity 17 Description of claimed invention, in re Validity 36 Description of prior patent, in re Validity 31 Description of prior publication, in re Validity 31 Detail and general claimed means, in re Identity 13 79 Page Diligence as to reissue application, in re Validity 41 Disclaimer, Statutory, in re Validity 30 Doctrine of equivalents, in re Identity 12 Duration of license, in re License 6 Employee as inventor, in re License 3 Employer and employee as inventor, in re Validity 21 Employer, Right of, in employee's invention 3 Equity jurisdiction, in re Eecoveiy , 45 Equivalent as to combination, in re Identity 17 Equivalent as to degree, in re Identity 17 Equivalent as to pioneer invention, in re Identity 18 Equivalent as to principle, in re Identity 16 Equivalent, Definition of, in re Identity 12 Equivalents affect patented invention, in re Identity 15 Equivalents, Doctrine of, in re Identity 12 Exemplary infringement damages, in re Recovery 53 Experiment by employer and employee, in re Validity 21 Experimental prior means or use, in re Validity 29 Experimental use before patent application, in re Validity. ... 33 Foreign law. License of, in re License 7 Foreign patent, limitation by previous, in re Validity 38 Foreign prior knowledge or use, in re Validity 31 Forms of patented invention, in re Identity 8 Forms of patented invention, in re Validity 20 Generic and specific claimed means, in re Identity 13 Generic patented means, in re Validity 26 Genius, Inventive, in re Validity 20 Grant of patent, in re Validity 37 Grantee, License by sectional, in re License 6 Identity, Advantages of claimed means, in re 18 . Identity, Amendment of patent application, in re 12 Identity, Analogous use of patented means, in re 18 Identity, Breadth of patented invention, in re 8 Identity, Cancellation of patent application matter, in re 12 Identity, Claim of patent, in re 9 Identity, Definition of equivalent, in re 12 Identity, Definition of patented invention, in re 15 Identity, Detail and general claimed means, in re 13 Identity, Doctrine of equivalents, in re 12 Identity, Equivalent as to combination, in re 17 80 Identity, Equivalent as to degi-ee, in re 17 Identity, Equivalent as to pioneer invention, in re 18 Identity, Equivalent as to principle, in re 16 Identity, Equivalent of claimed means, in re 15 Identity, Factors of patented invention, in re 8 Identity, Forms of patented invention, in re 8 Identity, General result of claimed invention, in re 16 Identity, Generic and specific claimed means, in re 13 Identity, Known equivalent, in re 12 Identity, Means of patented invention, in re 8 Identity, Objects of claimed means, in re 18 Identity of invention 8 Identity, Official action, in re 11 Identity, Patented and claimed invention, in re 15 Identity, Principle of claimed invention, in re 10 Identity, Prior state of tlie art, in re 14 Identity, Eecord of patent application, in re 11 Identity, Specification of patent, in re 10 Identity, Substantially same means, in re 14 Identity, Substitute for claimed means, in re 15 Implied license, in re License 3 Incomplete prior means, in re Validity 29 Infringement damages, in re Recovery 50 Infringement, Definition of 1 Infringement, Expense of, in re Recovery 48 Infringement profits, in re Recovery 45 Infringement, Recovery for 43 Infringement, Reduction of price by, in re Recovery 52 Injunction against infringement continuance 43 In public use or on sale, in re Validity 33 Interest on capital in business, in re Recovery 49 Interest on infringement damages, in re Recovery 53 Interest on infringement profits, in re Recovery 49 Invalidity of j)atented invention, see Validity Invention, Breadth of patented, in re Identity 8 Invention, Breadth of patented, in re Validity 26 Invention, Date of, in re Validity 21 Invention, Definition of claimed, in re Identity 8 Invention, Definition of patented, in I'e Identity 15 Invention, Factors of patented, in re Identity 8 81 Page Invention, Forms of patented, in re Identity 1 Inveiition, Identity of 8 Invention, Means of patented, in re Identity 15 Invention, Principle of claimed, in re Identity 10 Invention, Principle of patented, in re Validity 26 Invention, Suggestion about, in re Validity 20 Invention, Usefulness of claimed, in re Validity 25 Invention, Validity of patented, see Validity Invention, 'Worth of patented, in re Eecovery 44 Inventions, Joinder of, in re Validity 37 Inventive genius, in re Validity 20 Inventor, Employee as, in re License 3 Inventor, Employer and employee as, in re Validity 21 Joinder of inventions, in re Validity 37 Judgment, License by satisfaction of, in re License 4 Judgment, Satisfaction of prior, in re Recovery 53 Jurisdiction by equity, in re Eecovery 45 Knowledge or use, Prior, in re Validity ' 27 Knowledge or use. Prior foreign, in re Validity 31 Known equivalent, in re Identity 19 Legitimate combination, in re Validity 24 License, Agreement to make patented invention, in re 3 License, Annulment of, in re License 6 License, Assignability of, in re License 6 License before patent application, in re License 3 License by employee, in re License 3 License by partner, in re License 3 License by recovery, in I'e License 4 License by sectional owner, in re License 6 License, Duration of, in re License (i Licensee, Death of, in re License 6 License fee, in re Recovery 50 License, Implied, in re License 3 License in sold thing, in re License 5 License of f or'eign law, in re License 7 License of repair, in re License 5 License, Ratification of, in re License 6 License, Restoration of patented invention, in re. 5 Licensfe under patent 3 Limitation by previous foreign patent, in re Validity 38 6 82 rage Master, see Employer Material, Substitution of, in re Validity 22 Means, Equivalent of claimed, in re Identity 12 Means, Generic and specifio claimed, in re Identity I'A Means, Generic patented, in re Validity 26 Means of patented invention, in re Identity 8 Mechanical skill, in re Validity 21 Nominal infringement damages, in re Kecovery 51 ^Notice, in re Recovery 52 Objects of claimed means, in re Identity 18 Official action, in re Identity 11 On sale. In public use or, in re Validity 33 Oral testimony, in re Validity 30 Owner, License by sectional, in re License 6 Partner, License by, in re License 3 Patentability, see Validity Patent, Abandonment by previous, in re Validity 35 Patent application, Amendment of, in re Identity 11 Patent application. Amendment of, in re Validity 36 Patent application on prior means, in re Validity 20 Patent application. Public use before, in re Validity 33 Patent application record, in re Identity 11 Patent application. Sale before, in rQ Validity 33 Patent claim, in re Identity 9 Patented and claimed invention, in re Identity 15 Patent grant, in re Validity 37 Patent, License under 3 Patent, Limitation by previous foreign, in re Validity 3S Patent or printed publication. Prior, in re Validity 31 Patent specification, in re Identity 10 Patent, Validity of 20 Patents, Reissue, in re Validity 41 Previous foreign patent. Limitation by, in re Validity 38 Previous patent, Abandonment by, in re Validity 35 Principle, Equivalent as to, in re Identity Ifi Principle of claimed invention, in re Identity 10 Principle of patented invention, in re Validity 2(> Printed publication, Prior patent or, in re Validity 31 Prior art. Definition of ; . . . 13 Prior art. State of the, in re Identity 14 83 Page Prior foreign knowledge or use, in re Validity 31 Prior knowledge or use, in re Validity 27 Prior patent or printed publication, in re Validity 31 Prior state of the art. Definition of 18 Prior state of the art, in re Identity 14 Profits, Definition of infringement, in re Kecovery 43 Profits, Infringement, in re Recovery 45 Profits, Interest on infringement, in re Recovery 49 Profits of infringement, further see Recovery Proof of infringement damages, in re Recovery 45 Proof of infringement profits, in re Recovery 45 Proof of notice, in re Recovery 52 Proof of prior means, in re Validity 29 Publication, Prior patent or printed, in re Validity 31 Public use before patent application, in re Validity 33 Punitive infringement damages, in re Recovery 53 Purpose, Claim for attainment of, in re Validity 25 Ratification of attorney's amendment, in re Validity 37 Ratification of license, in re License 6 Record of patent application, in re Identity 11 Recovery, Account of infringement profits, in re 43 Recovery, Assessment of infringement damages, in re 43 Recovery, Attorney's fees not actual damages, in re 53 Recovery, Burden of proof, in re 45 Recovery, Business profits as damages, in re 51 Recovery, Damages of infringement, in re 50 Recovery, Definition of infringement damages, in re 43 Recovery, Definition of infringement profits, in re 43 Recovery, Exemplary infringement damages, in re 53 Recovery, Expense of infringing business, in re 49 Recovery for infringement 43 Recovery, Infringement damages, in re 50 Recovery, Infringement profits, in re 45 Recovery, Interest on capital in business, in re 49 Recovery, Interest on infringement damages, in re 53 Recovery, Interest on infringement profits, in re 49 Recovery, Jurisdiction by equity, in re 45 Recovery, License by 4 Recovery, License fee, in re 50 Recovery, Nominal infringement damages, in re 5.1 84 Page Recovery, Notice, in re 52 Recovery, Profits of infringement, in re 45 Recovery, Proof of infringement damages, in re 45 Recovery, Proof of infringement profits, in re 45 Recovery, Punitive infringement damages, in re 53 Recovery, Reduction of price by infringement, in re 52 Recovery, Reduction of sales by infringement, in re 51 Recovery, Reissue of patent, in re 45 Recovery, Satisfaction of prior judgment, in re 53 Recovery, Surrender of patent, in re 45 Recovery, Worth of patented invention, in re 44 Reissue application, Diligence as to, in re Validity 41 Reissue of patent, in re Recovery 45 Reissue patents, in re Validity 41 Relief against Infringement continuance 43 Repair, License of, in re License '. 5 Reservation of patented invention, in re Validity 35 Restoration of patented invention, in re License 5 Result, Means that accomplish general, in re Identity 16 Result, Means that accomplish genei'al, in re Validity 26 Sale, In public use or on, in re Validity 33 Sale, License by, in re License 5 Sale before patent application, in re Validity 33 Sameness of claimed invention, in re Identity 9 Sameness of patented invention, in re Identity 15 Scientific theory of claimed invention, in re Validity 36 Sectional owner, License by, in re License 6 Servant, see Employee Skill of the art, in re Validity 21 Sold thing. License in, in re License 5 Specification, Amendment of, in re Identity 12 Specification, Amendment of, in re Validity 36 Specification of patent, in re Identity 10 Specification, Sufficient, in re Validity 36 State of the art. Definition of prior 13 Statutory disclaimer, in re Validity 39 Substantially same means, in re Identity 14 Substitute for claimed means, in re Identity 15 Substitution of material, in re Validity 22 Success of claimed means, in re Validity 27 85 Success of prior means, in re Validity 28 Sufficient specification, in re Validity 36 Suggestion about invention, in re Validity 20 Surrender of patent, in re Recovery 45 Termination of license, in re License 6 Unsuccessful prior means, in re Validity 29 Use, Analogous, of patented means, in re Identity 18 Use, Analogous, of patented means, in re Validity 24 Use, Analogous, of prior means, in re Validity 23 Use, Experimental, of patented means, in re Validity 33 Use, Experimental, of prior means, in re Validity 29 Use or on sale. In public, in re Validity 33 Use, Prior foreign knowledge or, in re Validity 31 Use, Prior knowledge or, in re Validity 27 Usefulness, in re Validity, 25 "Validity, Abandoned prior means, in re 29 Validity, Abandonment by previous patent, in re 35 Validity, Accident of prior means, in re 30 Validity, Advantages of claimed means, in re 36 Validity, Advantages of prior means, in re 28 Validity, Advantages of prior patent means, in re 31 Validity, Advantages of prior publication means, in re 31 Validity, Aggregation of means, in re 24 Validity, Amendment of patent application, in re 36 Validity, Analogous use of patented means, in re 24 Validity, Analogous use of prior means, in re 23 Validity, Application for patent on prior means, in re 29 Validity, Assignment of invention, in re 37 Validity, Attorney's amendment, in re 37 Validity, Attorney's error, in re 42 Validity, Breadth of patented invention, in re 26 Validity, Burden of proof, in re 29 Validity, Combination of means, in re 24 Validity, Commercial success of invention, in re 27 Validity, Date of invention, in re 21 Validity, Death of patent applicant, in re 38 Validity, Degree, in re 23 Validity, Description of claimed invention, in re 36 Validity, Description of prior patent, in re 31 Validity, Description of prior publication, in re 31 Validity, Diligence as to reissue application, in re 41 Page Validity, Disclaimer of invention, in re 39 , Validity, Employer and employee as inventor, in re 21. Validity, Experiment by employer and employee, in re 21 Validity, Experimental prior means or use, in re 29 Validity, Experimental use before patent application, in re . . 33 Validity, Foreign prior knowledge or use, in re 31 Validity, Forms of patented invention, in re 26 Validity, General result of claimed invention, in re 25 Validity, Generic patented means, in re 26 Validity, Grant of patent, in re 37 Validity, Incomplete prior means, in re 29 Validity, In public use or on sale, in re 33 Validity, Inventive genius, in re 20 Validity, Joinder of inventions, in re 37 Validity, Legitimate combination, in re 24 Validity, Limitation by previous foreign patent, in re 38 Validity, Material of means, in re 22 Validity, Means, generic and specific, in re 26 Validity, Mechanical skill, in re 21 Validity of patent 20 Validity, Oral testimony, in re 30 Validity, Principle of patented invention, in re 26 Validity, Prior foreign knowledge or use, in re 31 Validity, Prior knowledge or use, in re 27 Validity, Prior patent or printed publication, in re 31 Validity, Proof of prior means, in re .29 Validity, Public use before patent application, in re 33 Validity, Ratification of attorney's amendment, in re 37 Validity, Eeissue patents, in re 41 Validity, Reservation of patented invention, in re 35 Validity, Sale before patent application, in re 33 Validity, Scientific theory of claimed invention, in re 36 Validity, Skill of the art, in re 21 Validity, Specification description, in re 36 Validity, Statutory disclaimer, in re 39 Validity, Substitution of material, in re 22 Validity, Success of claimed means, in re 27 Validity, Success of prior means, in re 28 Validity, Sufiicient specification, in re 36 Validity, Suggestion about invention, in re 20 Validity, Usefulness, in re 25 KF 3155 Z9 HI7 Author Vol. Hall, Thomas Bond. ■^''*Outline of the infringement of^py patents for inventions. 1