Corcoran
Corcoran v. Riness
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Stephens, J.
(dissenting).
I dissent. I think there was infringement.
Lead Opinion
Mathews, J.
Patent No. 1,854,660 was applied for by Emmet G. Martin on April 27, 1929, and was issued to him and his assignees, Thomas D. Corcoran, Merrill W. Hard and Lionel A. Wolff, 1 on April 19, 1932. To Tyle Tye Incorporated, Limited, a corporation (hereafter called Tyle Tye), the patentees granted an exclusive license to make, sell and use the devices and structures covered by the patent throughout the United States.
On May 28, 1936, Martin, Corcoran, Hard, Tyle Tye and Wolff’s administra-trix 2 brought an action (No. 943) against A. H. Riness (hereafter called defendant) for infringement of the patent. Answering, defendant alleged that all claims of the patent were invalid and denied that he had infringed any claim thereof. Trial was had, findings of fact, conclusions of law and a written opinion 3 were filed and, on September 23, 1937, judgment was entered holding that all claims of the patent were valid and that defendant had infringed claim 8 thereof, enjoining further infringement and ordering an accounting of profits and damages. From that judgment no appeal was taken.
On June 2, 1938, Corcoran, Hard, Tyle Tye, Wolff’s administratrix and Martin’s administrator 4 (hereafter…