Columbia Graphophone Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co.

(after stating the facts as above). The appellant contends that claims 2 and 3 were anticipated by the prior art, that they represent no patentable invention and have no patentable utility or novelty, that the court below erred in finding that the appellant had infringed said claims, and that the said court erred in not sustaining the appellant’s plea of laches.. The patent here involved has several times been before this court in controversies with parties other than the appellant here. Sherman Clay & Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co., 214 Fed. 86 , 130 C. C. A. 562 , and Id., 214 Fed. 99 , 130 C. C. A. 575 ; Pacific Phonograph Co. v. Searchlight Horn Co., 214 Fed. 257 , 130 C. C. A. 627 . The first of those cases was brought here upon a writ of error after a jury had found a verdict sustaining the *137 validity of the patent and finding its infringement. It is said, however, that the present case presents new parties and new defenses, sustained by new evidence. The new defenses are said to be the estoppel of the appellee by virtue of its attitude toward the Villy reissue patent, and its declarations concerning the same, the double use of the Gersdorff patent, and the laches of the…