Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co.

(after stating the facts as above). The evidence shows without contradiction that the Weber showcase met with immediate success, that the demand for it grew to such an extent that Weber could not personally meet it, and that for that reason *402 he transferred the patent to the appellant. Weber testified that he had no trouble in repairing any of his cases, no trouble in setting them up, and no trouble from breakage in shipping the same, and one of the officers of the appellant testified to a wide and extended sale of the Weber showcase, and the marked success of his corporation in making and selling and in licensing others to manufacture the same throughout the United .States.

[1,2] The appeal herein presents the single question whether the evidence introduced to prove prior use is in law sufficient to negative the novelty of the invention. Concerning the nature of the evidence required to establish the defense of prior use, it was said, in Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120 , 21 L. Ed. 821 :

In Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689 , 6 Sup. Ct. 970, 29 L. Ed. 1017 , the court reaffirmed the rule that the burden of proof is upon the defendants to establish the defense of prior use and…