Carroll v. Gambrill

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 581
• 5 F. Cas. 163

Syllabus

<p>Estoppel — acquiescence in another’s right. — Where it appears that before the interference arose one of the parties was aware that the other party claimed the invention as his own, and had obtained a patent for the same, and he further acted as the patentee’s agent in introducing and selling the patented machines, distributing circulars, recommending the machines, &c., without asserting any claim to the invention, but constantly repeating upon inquiry that he was not interested: He Id, That he was estopped from subsequently asserting a claim to the invention.</p> <p>Sm — Ssr—ground of estoppel. — In a case where admissions are made to induce others to act upon them, such admissions do not operate merely as presumptive evidence of the actual truth of the facts, which must give way to positive proof of the contrary, but precludes and, as it were, estops the party on grounds of policy.</p> <p>Abandonment — section Y, act op 1839. — It seems that such conduct and the acquiescence in the sale of the machines is a bar also upon the principles of patent law upon the ground of abandonment. The case does not fall within the exception of section Y of the act of 1839, since the sales were not made by the applicant nor by those claiming under him.</p>