On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. APPEAL FROM THE CTRCUIT COURT I'OK THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OC'. 30, 1SG9. The American Wood-Paper Company, Appellant, vs."Jacob D. Bejf, S. A. Rudolph, and John W. Iixon — The Amefican Wood-Pap: r Compaq, incorporated by the Legislature of Rhode Island, is the assignee or the English and French improvements for the manufacture of p;iper Torn wood (by boiling in caustic alkali until reduced to pulp), and of an American improvement in boilers for that use, under patents taken out in this coun-t-v, whicli it is claimed the appelle -s have infringed, by manufacturing and selling paper anctpaper pulp manufactured by the descriptions set forth, and by inei'ns of processes and machinery described in the specifications annex-d to the letters patent. The bill sought t restrain the app lies, a Philadelphia firm, from the manufacture of such paper and pulp, and prayed tna.t all infringing paper or pulp in their possession bo destroyed or delivered up to the apoellant. In the Circuit ourt, Mr. Justice Grier held that so far as the allcgt d improvements in boilers were new and patentable, they had not b-en infringed : mat the reissued patents for the English improvements were illegal and void, having been obtained on the false pretence of seeking: a correction on the specification, when the real in'ention was to change the inv-n tlon ; that ttie French improvement was not infringed, becaus - the proocss used by the appellees dii not require the minimum pressure to the square inch employed by the paient. Mr. Justice Cadwalader c-n curred with Mr. Justice Grier. in respect ot the two former patents, but thought there had been an infringement of the latter. This difference of rpinio i, however, did not save the case 01 the appellant, and the case was dismissed in order to enable the Company to ap al. Harrison B. Mead, of Fort Edward, Washington county, ?. Y., now intervenes, and moves that the anpeal be dismissed, alleging that it now ?resents only . feigned issue, the co trovcrsy having been composed be-ween the parties t it since the decree of the Circuit Court. It is averred that the appellees have no further interest in the matter, having been in-demnined by the appellant, and t:iat the suit is nw carried on for the purpose of obtaining a judgment in this court o- which to found an app ? cation for an injunction against a large number of persons in '.he manu tact ure of paper by a similar process fr alleged infringe nents of one or more of tlm improvements whose validity is at issue in this cau -e, one of whom is the intervenor, and against whom this Company has brought suit by a ooniplaint precisely like the bill at bar. Proof to sustain the motion having been taken, it was now argued. Geu. B. F. Butler for the motion ; T. A. Jenkes, opposed.
