Infringement action involving patent on new and improved case iron wheels for railroad cars. The defendants raised lack of utility as a defense.
The court, charging the jury, stated with regard to the non-utility defense that it “generally comes with bad grace from a person charged with an infringement, because, if the invention is of no utility, then he ought not to use it, and the very fact of his using it, if he is using it, shows that his practice and his professions, as regards the utility of the instrument, are very much at variance. On the evidence in the case, although the jury should find that the plaintiff's wheel is not the best wheel, yet if it is at all valuable, if its use for the purpose for which it is constructed is practicable, that is sufficient to sustain it as a useful invention.†Id. at 681.
The court also noted that “{i}t is not enough . . . to conceive the idea of a new manufacture, or of a new and useful instrument. That alone is of no benefit to mankind, and is not worthy of the patronage of government. The new idea must be reduced to some practical use before it can become the subject of a patent, or be set up and relied on to defeat a patent.†Id. at 682.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Sunday 16 of November, 2008 22:21:14 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Sunday 16 of November, 2008 22:21:14 GMT by Unknown