Skip to main content
· 5/4/1904

Barber v. National Carbon Co.

Citations

  • 129 F. 370
  • 5 L.R.A.N.S. 1154
  • 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4059

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Suit for Infringement — Construction of Plea.</p> <p>A plea to a bill for infringement of a patent allegéd that complainant was employed by defendant, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of carbons, as a mechanical engineer, and agreed to give his time, skill, and attention and inventive ability to the service of defendant in and about the cheapening and improving of the process of electroplating, and other processes in the manufacture of carbons; that while so employed, and at defendant’s expense, he made the inventions covered by the patent, which consist of a process and machine for electroplating; that such inventions and improvements “belong” to defendant; that “said defendant is entitled to the perpetual use of the same, and that, by reason of the facts hereinbefore stated, * * * complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for in said bill of complaint, but that said defendant * * * is entitled and has the right to the perpetual use in its business for its purposes” of said inventions. Held, that such plea should be construed as a plea of license only, which was all that was required to constitute a defense to the bill.</p> <p>2. Same — Infringement—Implied License.</p> <p>Defendant company, which was a manufacturer of carbons, employed complainant as a mechanical engineer on salary; a part of his duty being to devote his time and skill to the improvement and cheapening of the processes of such manufacture, an essential one of which was electroplating. While so employed, complainant invented a valuable process for electroplating, and a machine for carrying out the same, both of which he patented. Under his directions, special buildings were made at defendant’s works to accommodate seven of such machines, six of wliich were built and installed also under his direction, and a seventh was installed after his employment ended. Held, that while defendant did not become the owner of the patent, in the absence of an express agreement to that

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The privilege does not, however, cover the patient/psychotherapist’s identity, the time of treatment, and/or the fact that any such treatment took place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eurton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.