Putnam v. Keystone Bottle Stopper Co.

Citations

• 38 F. 234
• 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2812

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents for. Inventions — Reissue—Enlargement—Bottle-Stoppers.</p> <p>As the specification in reissued letters patent No. 7,722, June 5, 1877, to Karl Hutter, though more ample in matters of an explanatory nature, contains nothing of importance which is not plainly disclosed in the specification and drawings in the original patent, No. 158,406, January 5,-1875, the claim which is for the combination substantially, etc., of the compound stopper, the yoke, the lever, and the supporting device on the bottle by means of three pivotal connections upon which such members can be turned relatively to e&ch other without disconnecting either from the other, is not an enlargement of the claim of the original, which is for the bottle-stopping device composed of a pivotal lever-frame, applied to neck of bottle with eccentrically hinged yoke carding the elastic stopper and cap-piece arranged and operated substantially, etc.</p> <p>2. Same — Infringement—Improvement.</p> <p>Though the device manufactured under one patent is adjudged to be an infringement of another patent, yet, where both patents are afterwards united in the same' person, the infringing invention may be held to be an improvement upon the other, as against a person infringing, both patents.</p> <p>3. Same — Successive Patents to Same Person — Presumption.</p> <p>Prom the grant of a patent to one to whom a previous patent for a similar device has been granted there arises a presumption that there is a substantial difference between them, involving a patentable invention, and that the latex-one is for a patentable improvement on the earlier one.</p> <p>4. Samé — Action for Infringement — Injunction—Prior Adjudication.</p> <p>A preliminary injunction shouldbe granted in a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent, where, in other suits for the infringement of the same patent, the patent has been adjudged valid, and devices identical in every material respect with that of defendant have been held infringement