1. Reissued letters patent No. 1826, granted Nov. 29, 1864, to
Jonathan L. Booth for a new and useful improvement in grain
separators, are valid.
2. A specification describing an invention consisting merely of
a new combination of old elements or devices which produces a new
and useful result is sufficient if they be specifically named,
their mode of operation given, and the result pointed out, so that
those skilled in the art and the public may know the extent and
nature of the claim and what the parts are which co operate to do
the work claimed for the invention.
3. Where, in a suit for the infringement of letters patent for
such a combination, the parts of which are not susceptible of
division or separate use, the answer sets up that the complainant
is not the first and original inventor of it, the defense, to be
available, must apply to the combination as an entirety, and not to
a part of it, or to one or more of the claims of the letters, if
they do not cover the entire invention.
4. A patentee is not entitled to reimbursement for counsel fees
paid or expenses incurred by him, other than his taxable costs, nor
to interest on the profits realized by an infringer.
This was a suit by Jonathan L. Booth, against George Parks,
Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor, and James Vaughan, partners,
under the name and style of Turner, Parks, & Co., for an
alleged infringement of the complainant's reissued letters patent,
for an improvement in grain separators.
The letters were a second reissue. The original letters, No.
25,484, were granted to Booth Sept. 20, 1859; reissued Sept. 25,
1860, No. 1043; and again reissued Nov. 29, 1864, No. 1826.
The court rendered a decree May 9, 1874, adjudging that the
letters were valid, that the defendants had infringed them, and
that the complainant recover the profits, gains, and advantages
which the defendants received, or which accrued to them since Nov.
29, 1864, by the manufacture, use, and sale of the improvements
described and secured by the reissued letters, and also such
damages, if any, in addition to profits as he sustained by reason
of said infringement. The case was referred to a master to
ascertain the damages and profits, who filed his report Nov. 24,
1875, awarding to the complainant, on account of profits,
$9,944.09; and as damages, being expenses of conducting
Page 102 U. S. 97
the suit, $627.20; and compensation for the complainant's time,
$420; making in all, $10,991.29.
To this report the complainant and defendants filed exceptions,
which were overruled, saving that made to the allowance for his
time. The Master's report, as thus amended, was confirmed Dec. 15,
1876, and a final decree rendered against the defendants for the
sum of $11,184.42, being the amount found due by the amended
report, with interest thereon.
From that decree the defendants appealed.
The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries is expressly
vested in Congress by the Constitution. Pursuant to the power there
conferred, the enactment of Congress provides that the original
jurisdiction of patent cases shall be exclusive in the circuit
courts or the district courts exercising circuit court powers.
Rev.Stat., secs. 629-711.
Provision is also made that a party, whose rights, secured by
valid patent are invaded by infringement, may seek his remedy in an
action at law or by a suit in equity, at his election. 5 Stat. 124;
16
id. 206; Rev.Stat., sec. 4920.
Federal courts vested with jurisdiction in such cases have
power, in their discretion, to grant injunctions to prevent the
violation of any right secured by a patent, as in other cases of
equity cognizance.
Sufficient appears to show that a patent in due form was issued
to the complainant on the 20th of September, 1859, for a new and
useful improvement in grain separators which consisted in the
employment and use of a series of inclined screens and boxes,
having a proper shake motion communicated to them, in connection
with a fan air blast spout, the whole being arranged in a manner
set forth in the specification.
Without entering much into details, it will suffice to say
in
Page 102 U. S. 98
this connection that the object of the improvement was to
subject grain to a thorough screening operation. Machines were
constructed under the patent and were put in operation at various
places, but on the 25th of September of the next year it was
surrendered and reissued, and on the 29th of November, four years
later, it was surrendered a second time, when the patent in suit
was issued to the complainant, which is a second reissue. Having
removed the defects in the prior patents, the complainant alleges
that he immediately put the machines on sale; that he has ever
since been in possession of the right secured by the patent, and
that he would have made large profits from the manufacture and sale
of the same had he not been prevented from so doing by the
respondents.
Two claims are made by the complainant. He charges that the
respondents have largely infringed his exclusive right, and are
still engaged in making and selling machines which are constructed
in the same manner as the patented improvement and accomplish the
same object by the same mode of operation.
Service was made and the respondents appeared and filed an
answer. Their principal defenses are as follows:
1. That the complainant is not the original and first inventor
of the patented improvement.
2. That the alleged invention had been in public use and on sale
for more than two years prior to the application by the complainant
for a patent.
3. That the reissued patent described in the bill of complaint
is not for the same invention as the original.
Proofs were taken, hearing had, and the circuit court entered a
decree in favor of the complainant, and sent the cause to a master
to compute the profits, gains, and advantages which the respondents
have received, or which have arisen or accrued to them from the
infringements of the said patent. Due report was made by the
Master, to whose report certain exceptions were filed by the
respondents. Exceptions were also filed by the complainant, but,
inasmuch as he did not appeal, they will not be re examined. Those
filed by the respondents, which are still the subject of complaint,
will receive due consideration.
Both parties appeared and were heard in support of their
respective exceptions, all of which were overruled by the circuit
court except the fourth exception filed by the respondents.
Page 102 U. S. 99
Matters of the kind being settled, the circuit court entered a
final decree in favor of the complainant in the sum of $11,184.42,
with costs of suit. Prompt appeal was taken by the respondents to
this court, and since the cause was entered here they have filed
the assignment of errors set forth in their brief.
All such matters as are deemed material to the several defenses
pleaded in the answers will be carefully considered, without
entering into the details of the argumentative portion of the
errors assigned. When reduced to specific propositions, the errors
assigned may be stated as follows:
1. That the complainant is not the original and first inventor
of the patented improvement.
2. That the supposed improvement was not the proper subject of a
patent, because it did not involve any invention.
3. That the circuit court erred in finding that the respondents
had infringed the reissued patent of the complainant.
4. That the circuit court erred in overruling the exceptions of
the respondents to the Master's report.
5. That the circuit court erred in allowing damages to the
complainant in addition to profits.
Redress for the infringement of a patent may be sought by a suit
in equity as well as by an action at law, and the required
allegations and proofs are substantially the same in one form of
remedy as in the other. Neither damages nor profits can be
recovered unless the complaining party alleges and proves that he
or the person under whom he claims was the original and first
inventor of the patented improvement, and that the same has been
infringed by the party against whom the suit is brought. Both of
those allegations must be proved to maintain the suit, but the
patent, if introduced in evidence by the complaining party, affords
him
prima facie evidence that the patentee was the
original and first inventor. That presumption, in the absence of
any satisfactory proof to the contrary, is sufficient to entitle
him to recover if he proves the alleged infringement.
Evidence to overcome that presumption may be introduced by the
defending party in case due notice of such an intention is given to
the party that instituted the suit, as required by the act of
Congress. Rev.Stat., sec. 4920. Notices of the kind
Page 102 U. S. 100
were given by the respondents in their answers, and the
assignment of errors calls in question the decision of the circuit
court in that regard, which is the first question presented for
reexamination in the record.
Questions of the kind cannot well be decided without first
ascertaining what the patented improvement is that is described in
the first pleading of the complaining party, and that becomes
necessary in this case both in determining the issue of prior
invention and the issue of infringement. Attempt having failed to
show that the reissued patent is not for the same invention as the
original, the question as to the nature of the improvement may be
determined by the examination of the specification and drawings of
the patent in suit.
Two claims are annexed to the specification. The first is the
combination of the zigzag screens and boxes, as exhibited in the
model and drawings, when the same have a lateral shake motion, or
one at right angles to the passage of the grain, in such a manner
as to cause the grain to pass consecutively over and through them,
and when arranged relatively to each other, to operate as set forth
in the specification; the second is the series of zigzag screens
and boxes with or without the troughs and having the lateral shake
motion in connection with the fan and spout, as set forth in the
specification and exhibited in the drawings.
Plain as these claims are, it would not be difficult to define
their meaning, even without resort to the details of what precedes
in the specification. Speaking directly to the point, the patentee
states that his invention consists in the employment or use of
zigzag screens and boxes or passages having a proper lateral shake
motion communicated to them, and so arranged that the grain may
pass consecutively over and through them and be subjected to a
thorough screening operation. Also using in connection with the
zigzag screens and boxes a revolving fan and spout, so arranged
that the grain will be subjected to a sufficient blast for the
separation from it of all light impurities. Reference is then made
to the drawings, which show the frame of the machine and the manner
in which the series of devices called inclined screens are secured
by elastic pendants, as more fully explained in another part of the
specification. Explanations
Page 102 U. S. 101
follow which show that the screens may be formed of perforated
zinc or other sheet metal, placed alternately in reversed inclined
positions, as is clearly seen in figure 2 of the drawings, each
screen being placed at the top of what is termed a shallow box
which forms the passage of the grain, the boxes extending the whole
length of the screens in order to receive the grain and discharge
the same on to the elevated end of the screen next below, through
openings constructed for the purpose, in order that the screening
operation may be continued through the whole series of screens.
Instructive and minute explanations are given in the
specification of the entire construction and mode of operation of
the apparatus and the several devices of which it is composed.
Beyond all doubt, the explanations constitute a full compliance
with requirements of the Patent Act in all respects, and are amply
sufficient to show that the invention consists of the combination
of elements or ingredients, the substance of which is embodied in
the claims of the patent annexed to the specification. None of the
elements or ingredients are claimed to be new, from which it
follows that the invention consists entirely in the combination,
and not a doubt is entertained that it is both new and useful.
Inventors of machines are required, before they secure a patent,
to deliver a written description of the improvement and of the
manner and process of making, constructing, and using the same, in
such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable one skilled in the
art or science to make, construct, and use the invention. Drawings
are also required in certain cases, and if the invention is such
that it may be represented by a model, the applicant for a patent
is required to furnish a model of the improvement. Requirements of
the kind, in cases where they apply, may be regarded as conditions
precedent to the right of the Commissioner to grant such an
application, but cases often arise where they or some of them do
not apply.
An applicant for a patent "in case of a machine" is required to
explain the principle thereof, the best mode of applying the same,
and to point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or
combination which he claims as his invention, and the respondents
contend that the patent of the complainant
Page 102 U. S. 102
is invalid because the specification does not comply with that
requirement. Rev.Stat. sec. 4888.
Inventions sometimes embrace an entire machine, and in such
cases it is sufficient if it appears that the claim is coextensive
with the patented improvement. Other inventions embrace only one or
more parts of a machine, and in such cases the part or parts
claimed must be specified and pointed out, so that constructors,
other inventors, and the public may know what the invention is and
what is withdrawn from general use.
Patented inventions are also made which embrace both a new
device or element and a new combination of old devices embodied in
the same apparatus or machine. Particular description of the
improvement is required in such a case, as the property of the
patentee consists not only in the new device, but also in the new
combination.
Modern inventions very often consist merely of a new combination
of old elements or devices, where nothing is or can be claimed
except the new combination. Such a combination is sufficiently
described to constitute a compliance with the letter and spirit of
the act of Congress if the devices of which it is composed are
specifically named, their mode of operation given, and the new and
useful result to be accomplished is pointed out, so that those
skilled in the art and the public may know the extent and nature of
the claim and what the parts are which cooperate to do the work
claimed for the invention.
Apply those rules to the specification in question, and it is
clear that the proposition that it does not point out what is
claimed as new is wholly unsupported and founded in mistake as to
what is required by the Patent Act.
Suppose that is so, still it is insisted by the respondents that
the patentee is not the original and first inventor of the
improvement. Such a defense may be supported by proof that the
invention was made by another before the patented improvement was
made for the infringement of which the suit is brought. Authority
is also given to the respondent in such a suit to show if he can
that the improvement had been patented or described in some printed
publication prior to the supposed
Page 102 U. S. 103
invention set forth in the specification. Rev.Stat., sec. 4920.
Defenses of the kind are authorized by the act of Congress, and it
may be remarked that it is not necessary to allege or prove, in
order to sustain such a defense, that the prior patent or
description was issued or given two years earlier, as the only
requirement is that the patent or requirement is that the patent or
supposed invention of the complainant.
Enough appears in this explanation to show that the two defenses
may be considered together, as it is settled law that if the
patentee is not the original and first inventor of the improvement,
or if it had been patented or described in any printed publication
prior to the supposed invention, then the complainant cannot
recover.
Notice in due form is given by the respondents in their answer
and amended answer of twelve patents or specifications prior in
date to the patent of the complainant, and which, as the
respondents allege, supersede the invention described in the
complainant's patent. Attempt will not be made to describe the
invention set forth in each of these publications. Suffice it to
say in that regard that all of them have been carefully examined to
the extent of the means furnished by the transcript, and the Court
is of the opinion that no one of the documents is of a character to
sustain the issue that the complainant is not the original and
first inventor of the improvement.
Most or all of the inventions described in those publications
bear more or less resemblance to that claimed by the complainant,
and it may be that if it were allowable to test the validity of the
invention in question by comparing the same with the whole as if
embodied in a single exhibit, the evidence might be sufficient to
support the views of the respondents in respect to the defense
under consideration. Were that allowable, it might well be
suggested that the screen is found in one, the box in another, and
the means to produce the lateral shake in a third, and so on to the
end; but it would still be true that neither the same combination
in its entirety nor the same mode of operation is described in any
one of the patents or printed publications given in evidence.
Attempt is scarcely made in argument to show that any one
Page 102 U. S. 104
of these exhibits embodies the entire invention of the
complainant, but it is insisted that every feature of the patented
improvement is found in some one or more of those publications.
Suppose that is so, still it is clear that such a concession, if
made, could not benefit the respondents unless they can be allowed
to extend the same comparison to two or more exhibits, as they do
not contend that the entire invention is superseded by any one of
their exhibits.
Where the thing patented is an entirety, consisting of a
separate device or of a single combination of old elements
incapable of division or separate use, the respondent cannot make
good the defense in question by proving that a part of the entire
invention is found in one prior patent, printed publication, or
machine, and another part in another, and so on indefinitely, and
from the whole or any given number expect the court to determine
the issue of novelty adversely to the complainant.
Bates v.
Coe, 98 U. S. 31.
Common justice forbids such a defense, as it would work a
virtual repeal of so much of the Patent Act as gives to inventors
the right to a patent consisting of old elements, where the
combination itself is new and produces a new and useful result. New
elements in such a patent are not required, and if such a defense
were allowed, not one patent of the kind in a thousand of modern
date could be held valid. Nor is such a defense consistent with the
regulations enacted by Congress in respect to the procedure in
litigations in respect to patent rights.
Infringers or persons sued as such may plead the general issue,
and having given the required notice may prove that the patentee is
not the original and first inventor of the improvement, or that it
had been patented or described in some printed publication prior to
the supposed invention, or that it had been in public use or on
sale in this country for more than two years before the patentee
applied for his patent. Corresponding proceedings may be had in
equity, the denial of infringement and notice being alleged and
given in the answer.
Defenses of the kind, if the thing patented is an entirety,
incapable of division or of separate use, must be addressed to the
invention and not a part of it or to one or more claims
Page 102 U. S. 105
of the patent, if less than the entire invention. More than one
patent may be included in one suit, and more than one invention may
be secured in the same patent, in which cases the several defenses
may be made to each patent in the suit and to each invention to
which the charge of infringement relates.
Remarks already made, without more, are sufficient to show that
the evidence introduced by the respondents to sustain the
proposition that the complainant is not the original and first
inventor of the improvement fails to establish that assignment of
error, and that the defense must be overruled.
Much discussion of the next defense is not required beyond what
is necessary to state the true construction and meaning of the
provision of the Patent Act which allows that defense.
Evidence of the want of novelty arises from the acts of others,
the defense being that the invention was constructed by another
before the patentee made his invention, the rule being that
priority for right depends in the first place upon priority of
construction. Inventors may, if they can, keep their inventions
secret; but if they do not, and suffer the same to go into public
use for a period exceeding what is allowed by the Patent Act, they
forfeit their right to a patent. Hence the Patent Act allows the
infringer to plead and prove that the invention of the patentee had
been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two
years before the inventor applied for a patent. No question of
priority is open under that defense, nor will evidence sustain it
that another had made or patented the invention two years before
the application, without the knowledge of the patentee whose
invention is in question.
Evidence of priority is admissible under the preceding defense.
Unless inventors keep their inventions secret, they are required to
be vigilant in securing patents for their protection, and if they
do not, and suffer the same to be in public use or on sale in this
country for more than two years before they apply for a patent,
they forfeit their right, and if an infringer alleges and proves
that defense, he cannot be held liable in a suit for
infringement.
Subject to this explanation, it is clear that there is no proof
in this case that the complainant was guilty of any laches in
Page 102 U. S. 106
applying for a patent, or that his improvement ever went into
public use or was on sale in this county before he applied for his
patent.
Machines called grain separators, it is admitted in argument,
are manufactured and sold by the respondents, but they denied in
their original answer that their separators were in all respects
constructed in the same manner as the apparatus of the complainant,
nor have they since entirely abandoned that proposition. Instead of
that, they still insist that the reissued patent of the complainant
differs from the original, but they substantially admit that the
machines which they construct and sell do infringe the invention of
the complainant, as described in the reissued patent, which is
sufficient for the complainant, as the respondents have failed to
make good their defense that the reissued patent is not for the
same invention as the original. Irrespective of any admission,
however, the Court is satisfied, from a comparison of the two
exhibits, that the charge of infringement is fully sustained.
Eighteen exceptions were filed by the respondents to the report
of the master, but it is not deemed necessary, in view of the state
of the record, to give them a separate examination in this case.
Infringement being proved, the complainant was entitled to an
account of the profits made by the respondents in the unlawful use
of the patented improvement, which consisted of the new combination
described in the specification. Obviously it was a proper case for
reference to a master, and it is not perceived that the general
basis of his report exhibits any error to the prejudice of either
party. Two special errors are discovered in addition to the one
very properly corrected by the circuit court.
Costs were properly allowed, but the Court is of the opinion
that the complainant was not entitled to an allowance for any
expenses beyond the taxable costs. Interest on the profits decreed
to the complainant should not have been allowed, as was decided by
this Court many years ago, the better opinion being that profits in
such a case are to be regarded in the light of unliquidated
damages, which usually do not draw interest without the special
order of the court.
Silsby v.
Foote, 20 How. 378,
61 U. S.
386.
Page 102 U. S. 107
Expenses to the amount of $627.20, including counsel fees, were
allowed to the complainant beyond the taxable costs, which,
together with the entire interest allowed, must be deducted from
the decree. From which it follows that the decree in favor of the
complainant, instead of being $11,184.42, should be $9,992.09,
without interest, but with costs of suit, as allowed in the decree
of the circuit court, and the decree in modified so as to conform
to that computation, but without any injunction, as the term of the
patent has expired.
The decree, as modified, will be affirmed, without interest or
costs, the costs of this Court to be paid by the appellee; and it
is
So ordered.