Testimony Taken by the Committee Appointed by the House of Representatives to Investigate Charges Against Certain Public Officers Relating to the Pan-Electric Telephone Company, and to Suits by the United States to Annul the Bell

Testimony Taken by the Committee Appointed by the House of Representatives to Investigate Charges Against Certain Public Officers Relating to the Pan-Electric Telephone Company, and to Suits by the United States to Annul the Bell

List price: US$72.77

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ...of complaint, which is proposed to be filed, can be shown at lcast prima facic, sud can probably be established beyond serious controversy. Second. If these facts are shown, my understanding of the rule is that such patent would be held illegal and invalid, and that in case such facts are true such patent is probably voidable. My attention has been called to the case of the United States of America '0. John Gunning and Adeline M. Ingersoll, which was a suit commenced by bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for tho southern district of New York for the purpose of vacating certain letters patent theretofore granted to said Gunning, upon the ground that "applicant induced the grant by his statements in his application that he believed himself to be the inventor of the patentable subject, and didnot know or believe that it had been in public use or on sale in the United States for more than ltwo ylealrs prior to his application, whereas both of these statements were false to his 'now e ge. lnthis case Mr. Bigelow asserts that Sargent and Warren obtained letters patent to themselves jointly for an invention which they asserted was their joint invention; whereas, in truth and in fact, the same was the sole invention of Warren. It is not complained that the monopoly created by such a patent should not have been granted; on the contrary, it is agreed that Warren was entitled at that time to precisely the monopoly which Sargent and Varren secured by virtue of their joint application, and in pursuance of a previous contract entered into between themselves. _It will be observed that in the Gunning case the bill was filed and the suit maintained upon the ground that no monopoly in fact should have been granted; that...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 594 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 30mm | 1,048g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236783743
  • 9781236783745