Rollman Mfg. Co. v. Universal Hardware Works

Citations

• 207 F. 97
• 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1297

Syllabus

<p>.1. Patents (§ 165*)—Construction of Claims.</p> <p>Where a limitation expressly stated in some of the claims of a patent is omilted from others, it cannot be read into them to avoid a charge of infringement.</p> <p>LEd. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 241; Dec. Dig. § 165.*]</p> <p>2. Patents (§ 165*)—-Construction of Claims — Statement of Preferred Method of Construction.</p> <p>It is proper for an applicant for a patent to point out in his specification the preferred method of operation of his machine, but, in the absence of any expression in his claims making such details elements therein, they are not limited thereby.</p> <p>I Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 241; Dec. Dig. § 165.*]</p> <p>3. Patents (§ 129*)—Suit for Infringement—Estoppel.</p> <p>Where a corporation alleged to infringe a patent was organized by the patentee and his family after he assigned tlie patent, and he has since been its president and active manager, it is bound by Ms estoppel and cannot deny the validity of the patent but may show the prior art to define and limit the claims.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 182%-186; Dee. Dig. § 129.*]</p> <p>4. Patents (§ 328*)—-Validity and Infringement—Cheery Stoner.</p> <p>The Rollman patent No. 686,139 for a cherry stoner held not anticipated, valid and infringed.</p> <p>5. Patents (§ 222*)—Suit for Infringement—Recovery of Profits—Failure to [Mark Article.</p> <p>The failure of the owner of a patent to mark the patented article as required by Rev. St. § 4000 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3388), does not deprive him in a proper case of the right to an accounting for profits made by an infringer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 352; Dec. Dig. § 222.*]</p>