SHAWL STRAP PATENT.--GEORGE CROUCH _vs._ WILLIAM ROEMER.
[In equity.]
By Nixon, District Judge.
This is an action for an alleged infringement of complainant's
letters patent No. 82,606, dated September 29, 1868, and reissued
March 7, 1871, No. 4,289.
The subject-matter of the patent is in the reissue described to be
a strap "to confine a shawl or similar article in a bundle," and
termed a shawl-strap. The schedule attached to and forming a part
of the said reissued patent states, that before the complainant's
invention "straps had been used to confine a shawl or similar
article in a bundle, and a leather cross-piece with loops at the
ends, had extended from one strap to the other; and above and
attached to this leather cross-piece was a handle. This leather
cross-piece or connecting strap is liable to bend and allow the
straps to be drawn toward each other by the handle in sustaining
the weight. Hence the bundle is not kept in a proper shape and the
handle is inconvenient to grasp."
The invention is then stated to consist "of a rigid cross-bar
beneath the handle, combined with suspending straps, that are to
be passed around the shawl or bundle, such straps passing through
loops at the ends of the handle."
No question can be made but that the shawl straps manufactured
and sold by the defendant are an infringement of the complainant's
reissue. They consist of a metallic cross-bar, with slots at the
ends for the reception of the straps, and which also connect the
ends of the handle.
Several defences are set up in the answer, but the only one
necessary to consider is the first, to wit: The want of novelty
and prior public use.
I had occasion, heretofore, to inquire into the validity of
the complainant's patent, in a controversy between the same
complainant, and Speer _et al._, reported in VI. Off. Gaz. 1874,
in which, as in this case, the principal defence turned upon
the novelty of the invention. A prior public use was alleged and
attempted to be proved. I there said and now repeat "that the
patent is _prima facie_ evidence that the patentee was the
original and first inventor, and that any one who controverts this
assumes the burden of proof and undertakes to show affirmatively
that there was a prior knowledge and use of the alleged invention
under such circumstances, as to give to the public the right of
its continued use against the patentee."
The defence in this case has brought out many facts in regard to
the public use of the rigid cross-bar in shawl straps anterior to
the date of the complainant's patent, which were not developed in
the former suit. There is no evidence which in my judgment affects
the honesty of the complainant's claim, or which creates any
doubt that he really believed himself to be the original and first
inventor, but nevertheless I am constrained to the conclusion,
after a most careful examination of the whole testimony, that the
proofs show with reasonable certainty that he has been anticipated
in the invention and that his patent is void, in consequence of
the prior knowledge and public use, and the bill must be therefore
dismissed with costs.
[_E. B. Barnum_, for complainant.
_Arthur v. Briesen_, for defendant.]
* * * * *