Bayley & Sons, Inc. v. Braunstein Bros.
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by Bayley & Sons, Incorporated, against the Braunstein Brothers Company. On motion to dismiss. This is a motion to dismiss a bill in equity for infringement of a patent.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by Bayley & Sons, Incorporated, against the Braunstein Brothers Company. On motion to dismiss. This is a motion to dismiss a bill in equity for infringement of a patent. The relevant allegations are that George W. Bayley was “the first, original, and sole inventor of the new and useful improvement in electric light fixtures, and was entitled to a patent therefor under the provisions of the statutes in such case made and provided, and on the 4th day of June, 1915, made an appli.cation in due form of law to the Commissioner of Patents of the United States and complied with the…
1Opinion of the CourtLearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Every one. concedes that the patent itself is only prima facie proof of the patentee’s right to his monopoly. To allege the patent alone, therefore, is to allege evidence, and not the “ultimate facts” required by rule 25 (198 Fed. xxv, 115 C. C. A. xxv). The only question that can arise is, what portions of the statute which define his right shall be regarded as provisos and what exceptions. It was well settled before tire rules went into effect that the plaintiff must allege, not only that he was the first, original, and sole inventor, but also compliance…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blessing v. Works.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
- Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1890
- Coop v. Dr. Savage Physical Development Institute, Ltd.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1891
- Goebel v. American Railway Supply Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893
- Maxwell Steel Vault Co. v. National Casket Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1926
- Ingrassia v. ACW Mfg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Davis v. Motive Parts Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1922
- Bonney Supply Co. v. HeltzelDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.