PATENTS. 



PEEL, ARTHUR W. 



643 



the present temper of the court. One of the 

 justices composing this tribunal has seen fit, 

 however, to dissent most emphatically from his 

 colleagues. In the case of Mahn against Har- 

 wood, decided Dec. 1, 1884, and reported in 

 the "Official Gazette" of the United States 

 Patent-Office, vol. xxx, p. 661, Justice Miller 

 thus expresses himself at the end of the dis- 

 senting opinion alluded to : *' In several cases 

 that have preceded this one, especially Miller 

 ts. Bridgeport Brass Company (104 U. S. R., 

 350), where this doctrine [of the invalidity 

 of reissues for laches] has been stated in the 

 opinion, other grounds were also given as the 

 foundation of the judgment. I also hoped that 

 when we came to a case where the question 

 must be decided, my brethren would not adopt 

 it, on full consideration. This must be my 

 apology for any apparent acquiescence in it 

 heretofore. I am of opinion that reissued pat- 

 ents are entitled to the same consideration as 

 other patents issued by the Government." This 

 opinion was received with great interest by 

 patent lawyers, who hope for more moderate 

 rulings on reissued letters- patent. 



The litigation concerning the famous barbed- 

 wire-fencing patents is still in progress. These 

 are enormously valuable. In one year, $300,- 

 000 were spent in litigation concerning them. 



The Commissioner. The President has ap- 

 pointed Martin V. Montgomery as Commis- 

 sioner of Patents, in place of Mr. Butter worth, 

 resigned. The new official was born Oct. 20, 

 1840, in Eaton Rapids, Eaton county, Mich. 

 He was admitted to the bar in the Circuit 

 Court for the county of Eaton, in October, 

 1865. Since that time he has been admitted 

 to practice in all the Federal courts, including 

 the Supreme Court. His practice in the State 

 of Michigan has been very extensive. 



Decisions. The following is an abstract of a 

 few of the more generally useful decisions 

 rendered in patent cases by the United States 

 courts during 1884. The references are to 

 page and volume of the u Official Gazette " of 

 the Patent-Office. 



The process of operating a mechanism is not 

 patentable. (Dreyfoos vs. Weisse, xxvi, 639.) 



Infringement of patent without knowledge 

 of patentee does not work an abandonment. 

 (Adams vs. Howard, xxvi, 825.) 



A prior application for a patent, without 

 evidence to show that the thing was ever con- 

 structed, is not enough to defeat a patent. 

 (Same case.) 



Invalidity of one claim of a reissue does not 

 render other claims invalid. (Reay vs. Ray- 

 nor, xxvi, 1111.) 



When a patentee has sold his right, title, and 

 interest in, to, and under a patent, and after- 

 ward purchases another patent of prior date 

 for the purpose of defeating his assignee's 

 rights, it was held that such proceeding is 

 manifestly unjust and inequitable, and the 

 original sale operates as a license. (Cnrran vs. 

 Birdsall, xxvii, 1319.) 



A photograph produced by an operator who 

 posed the subject, arranging the costume, dra- 

 pery, etc., was held to be a work of art and 

 subject of copyright. (Burrow Giles Lith. Co. 

 vs. Sarony, xxvii, 413.) 



Every patent for a product or composition 

 of matter must identify it so that it can be 

 recognized apart from the description of the 

 process for making it, or else the invention 

 will be limited to the process. Also, artificial 

 alizarine is not patentable as a product, be- 

 cause it is set forth as an old thing made arti- 

 ficially. (Cochrane vs. Badische Analin und 

 Soda Fabrik, xxvii, 814.) 



When an original patent is valid and its re- 

 issue invalid, there is no reason why a second 

 reissue, embracing the valid claim of the origi- 

 nal patent, should not be valid. (G. Powder 

 Co. vs. S. Nitro-P. Co., xxvii, 99.) 



What would infringe the patent if later, 

 anticipates if earlier. (Peters vs. Active Mfg. 

 Company, xxviii, 1102.) 



A structure embracing all the elements of 

 the patented article and also another feature 

 not found therein, is an infringement. (Roe- 

 mer vs. Simon, xxviii, 194.) 



An officer of a corporation actively partici- 

 pating in an infringement by said corporation, 

 is liable therefor. (Nat. Car-Brake Shoe Co. 

 vs. Terre Haute Car Mfg. Co., xxviii, 1007.) 



In the same case it was held that "the rec- 

 ord at Washington is notice to all the world." 



The provisions of the statute as to limitation 

 of United States patents, as influenced by pre- 

 viously granted foreign patents, only apply to 

 the term for which the foreign patent was 

 originally granted, and not to any accidental 

 lapsing of the same. (Holmes E. P. Co. vs. 

 Met. B. A. Co., xxviii, 1189.) 



When one party makes one part of a patent- 

 ed combination, and another makes the other 

 part, and the parts can not be used separately, 

 there is joint infringement. (Schneider vs. 

 Pountey, xxix, 84.) 



The fact that a patented article was imme- 

 diately successful in the trade is evidence of 

 invention, and want of any success indicates 

 an abandoned experiment. (Hicks vs. Otto, 

 xxix, 365.) 



Business circulars issued only to the trade 

 are not publications within the meaning of the 

 statute. (N. P. Fermentation Co. vs. Koch, 

 xxix, 535.) 



PEEL, ARTHUR WELLESLEY, an English states- 

 man, born in August, 1829. He is the youngest 

 son of the late Sir Robert Peel, who was Prime 

 Minister in 1841-'46. The son was educated 

 at Balliol College, Oxford, being graduated in 

 1 852, and studied law, but was never called to 

 the bar. In 1863 he was a candidate for mem- 

 ber of Parliament from Coventry, but was de- 

 feated. Two years later he was returned as a 

 Liberal for Warwick, and he has represented 

 that constituency ever since. He has had wide 

 experience in the government service, being 

 Secretary to the Poor-Law Board from Decem- 



