San Francisco Cornice Co. v. Beyrle
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Suit in equity by Andrew Beyrle against the San Francisco Cornice Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. The appellee was the complainant in the court below in a suit to enjoin infringement of letters patent No. 887,995, issued to him on May 19, 1908, for the art of casing wooden moldings with metal, and for an accounting.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Suit in equity by Andrew Beyrle against the San Francisco Cornice Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. The appellee was the complainant in the court below in a suit to enjoin infringement of letters patent No. 887,995, issued to him on May 19, 1908, for the art of casing wooden moldings with metal, and for an accounting. The court below sustained the patent, enjoined the appellant from infringing the same, and referred the cause to the standing master in chancery to ascertain, take,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The defense to the action rests upon two grounds: First, that the patent is void for the want of invention or discovery; and, second, that the defendant has not infringed.
[1] With respect to the first defense, the rule is that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish this defense, for the grant of letters patent is prima facie evidence that the patentee is the first inventor of the device, or the discoverer of the art or process, described in the letters patent and of its novelty. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 489, 23…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cochrane v. DeenerSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Cantrell v. WallickSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Schumacher v. Buttonlath Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
- Bankers' Utilities Co. v. Pacific Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927
- Alliance Securities Co. v. J. A. Mohr & SonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1925
- Consolidated Contract Co. v. Hassam Paving Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.