Barber v. National Carbon Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a bill alleging infringement of letters patent No. 523,099, issued to the complainant, Clarence M. Barber, July 17, 1894. The patent is both for a process and an apparatus for electroplating. The defendants filed a plea in the following words and figures: “In the Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. This is a bill alleging infringement of letters patent No. 523,099, issued to the complainant, Clarence M. Barber, July 17, 1894. The patent is both for a process and an apparatus for electroplating. The defendants filed a plea in the following words and figures: “In the Circuit Court of the United States, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. “Clarence M. Barber, Complainant, v. The National Carbon Company, et al., Defendants. In Equity. “The defendants, the National Carbon Company, Washington H.…
1Opinion of the CourtEurton, Circuit Judge
The discussion has largely turned upon the proper interpretation of the plea. The appellant insists that it is a good plea of title to the “inventions” made by Barber, and that an agreement to give one’s time, skill, and inventive ability is, in legal effect, an agreement that the fruit of his inventions shall become the property of his employer. By this method of reasoning it is sought to secure a holding that the plea is a good plea of title, notwithstanding the absence of any averment that there was an “agreement” that the company should have title to his inventions, or to any patent that…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Hapgood v. HewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Lane & Bodley Co. v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Gill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McKinnon Chain Co. v. American Chain Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1919
- Wiegand v. Dover Mfg. Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1923
- Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co. v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Peck v. Standard Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Hazen Mfg. Co. v. WarehamCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.