104 F. 682 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California | 1900
This is a suit in equity, brought by the complainants under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to obtain the reissue of certain letters patent. The complaint is demurred to by the respondents upon several grounds, presenting the following questions for consideration: Does the remedy provided in section 4915 of the Revised Statutes cover an application for the reissue of a patent? If so, does the bill of complaint herein state with sufficient particularity the facts upon which the reissue of patent is asked?
Section 4915 provides:
“Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the commissioner of patents or by the supreme court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the commissioner,' the applicant may have remedy by bill In equity; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to' law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified In his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear.”
The respondents contend that the words “patent on application,” at the beginning of the section, cannot be construed to include applications for reissue of patents, and that, therefore, the controversy in the present suit arising upon an application for the reissue of a
“That whenever application shall be made to the commissioner for any addition of a newly-discovered improvement to be made to an existing pa lent, or whenever a patent shall be returned for correction and re-issne, the specification of claim annexed to every such patent shall be subject to revision and restriction, In the same manner as are original applications for patents; the commissioner shall not add any such improvement to the patent in the one; case, nor grant the re-issue in (he other case, until the applicant shall have entered a disclaimer, or altered his specification of claim in accordance with the decision of the commissioner; and in all such cases, the applicant, if dissatisfied with such decision, shall have the same remedy and be entitled to the benefit of the same privileges and proceedings as are provided by law in the case of original applications for patents.”
—That this section was not incorporated into the Revised Statutes, and therefore the remedy has ceased to exist in cases of applications for reissue of patents.
The first step in construing a statute is to examine the language of the statute itself. The Revised Statutes must be treated as the legislative declaration of the statute law on the subjects which they embrace. When the meaning is plain, the courts cannot look to the statutes which have been revised to see if congress erred in that revision. Resort may only he had to the prior laws when necessary to construe doubtful language used in expressing the meaning of congress. U. S. v. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508, 513, 25 L. Ed. 631. Where is the doubtful language in the section in controversy? It says, “Whenever a patent on application is refused, ⅜ * * the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity.” Is not this a simple, concise statement of the intention of the legislature to include patents of anj nature within the remedy? Ao specification is made of patents on original application or patents on reissue application, but the general term is used, which will include patents applied for under any conditions that may arise in such proceedings. That a reissued patent; has the same standing in the law' as an original patent is undoubfed. The statutes so provide, and the courts so construe them in innumerable cases. A patent is granted originally to secure certain rights to inventors for a limited time. A reissued patent merely secures those rights more definitely In some particular wherein the original patent was defective. Is it reasonable to suppose that congress intended to limit judicial consideration to the, claims for a patent first presented, regardless of their accuracy or completeness? The answer is self-evident, and it is not surprising that no authorities can be cited in this connection. The demurrer will he overruled as to the want of equity in the hill and to the absence of jurisdiction in this court.
The bill is also demurred to- as insufficient in not specifically setting forth the reasons why the patent should be amended, and a re