BALTIMORE UAB-WHEEL 00. U. NORTH BALTIMORE PASSENGER BY. O0. 47
Brmrmonn Can-Wann:. Co. v. Norm: Blmtrnoan Psssnuoma U
BY. Go.
(Circuit Court, D. Maryland. July 14, 1884.)
1. Prrmrrs ron Ixvnnrrons-Rnrssum No. 9,881. _ .
The third claim of reissued patent N o. 9,881, September 27, 1881, to Joseph
Harris, held void, because the reissue was after 14 years’ delay, and after adverse
rights had accrued.
2. SAMn—Rn1ssUn No. 3,243.
The first claim of reissued patent N o. 3,243, granted December 22, 1868, to
T. B. Stewart, if construed to cover the combination of two tubes fitting one
within the other without flanges, and neither made oblong in shape, is void for
want of novelty, if for no other reason.
3. SAME—INFRINGEMENT—LICENBE.
In a case in which the complainant, suing for infringement of his patent,
does not proceed to enforce remedies under a license granted by him, but treats
the license as no longer in force, a purchaser from the supposed licensee is
not estopped from denying the validity of the patent; and in no case is a mere
purchaser from a licensee estopped from denying the validity of the patent in
a suit against him for infringement. ·
In Equity. · V
R. D. Wiltimns and Benjaman PJ Price, for complainant. B A
Bernard Carter and B. F. Thurston, for defendant.
Moams, J. This is a suit for the alleged infringement of two re-
issued patents for improvements in car axle-boxes, of which the com-
plainant is owner by assignment, and which it is alleged that the re-
spondent has infringed by using in its business certain ca.r·wheels
and axle-boxes which it purchased from the Bemis Car-box Company
of Springfield, Massachusetts. The two patents as to which infringe-
ment is alleged are the reissue to T. B. Stewart, No. 3,243, dated De-
cember 22, 1868, the original being _No. 71,241, dated November 19,
1867; and the reissue to Joseph Harris, No. 9,881, dated September
27, 1881, the original being No. 71,873, dated December 10, 1867.
The Harris patent was reissued 14 years after the original had been
granted, and thethird claim, which is the only one drawn in question,
first appeared in the reissue. This claim is for the combination with
the neck or annular 1·ecess in the journal, and with the journal-box,
of the key or shoulder made to slip on in the recess and straddle the
journal, thereby keying the journal and the box together. The evi- 1
‘ dence is convincing that in the interval of 14 years .between the orig-
inal patent in which this device was not claimed and the reissue in
which it was, the use of the key, shoulder, andrecess in car axle-boxes
had become general throughout the country; and it must be conceded,
as was practically admitted in the argument of the case, that this
claim comes within the rulings which hold that what is not claimed
in an original patent is dedicated. to the public, unless the patent is
surrendered and reissued within a reasonable time and beforeadversef
rights have accrued. Miller v. Brass Co. 104 U. S.—350‘; James v.»