Novelty Glass Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
On Motion to Modify Mandate. For opinion on the merits, see 170 Fed. 946.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBADD, District Judge.
But one claim of the patent in suit having been sustained, a motion is made to deny costs to the complainants. This motion, in our judgment, must prevail. By the express provision of the statute (Rev. St. § 4922 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3396]), whenever a patentee, through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any willful default or intent to defraud or mislead the public, has claimed more than he is entitled to-, while he may maintain a suit for infringement of the part which is bona fide his own, no costs are recoverable unless a proper disclaimer has…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Sachs v. Hartford Electric Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Gilchrist Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1918
- Excelsior Steel Furnace Co. v. F. Meyer & Bro. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
- John W. Gottschalk Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Wire & Tinsel Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935
- Brunt v. La Crosse Plow Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.