MANUFACTURERS of corrugated culverts in 

 the United States, operating under the 

 Watson patent, have just been informed by their 

 attorney, Wallace R. Lane of Chicago, that the 

 United States Court of Appeals for the second cir- 

 cuit, having final jurisdiction, has just handed down 

 a mandate reversing the lower court and holding the 

 Watson corrugated culvert patent valid and in- 

 fringed by a culvert installed by county commis- 

 sioners in New York. 



The suit over the infringement of the Watson 

 patent has been a historic controversy, very remark- 

 able in patent litigation, and of keen interest to all 

 those who have any direct or indirect connection 

 with United States patents. It has been before the 

 courts for many years and the advantage has seemed 

 to be first with one side and then with the other. 

 This decision of the United States Circuit Court of 

 Appeals is a final outcome. Circumstances are such 

 that no appeal can be taken. 



The decision says in part : 



"The Watson patent has been so thoroughly 

 discussed in the opinions of the District Court and 

 of this court that it will serve no useful purpose to 

 repeat in detail what is there said regarding the 

 patent and the disclosures of the prior art. The 



patent is for a corrugated metal culvert. It is un- 

 usually plain and simple. 



"In brief the claim is for a sheet metal culvert 

 composed of connected cylindrical sections having 

 circumferential corrugations extending to the ex- 

 tremities of the sections. Each section terminates, 

 at one end in a flared, and at the other end in a 

 contracted portion of a corrugation, so that two sec- 

 tions may interlock, the ends being held in place by 

 bolts or similar means. The corrugations greatly 

 strengthen the culvert and the doubling of the cor- 

 rugations at the joints braces and adds stability in 

 the structure. 



"In short, the patented culvert is cheap, strong, 

 durable, easily transported, quickly laid down and 

 easily repaired. 



"We cannot believe that the man who gave 

 such a structure to the world should be denied the 

 title of an inventor. 



"The fact that Watson, during the early years 

 of his patent was almost invariably repulsed by 

 those interested in the art because they thought 

 his device empirical, inefficient and perishable, is 

 persuasive to the conclusion that his improvement 

 was not obvious. 



"In view of the phenomenal success of the 



