IP
JOHNSON v. COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH CO.; SAME v. NATIONAL GRAPHOPHONE CO.
106 F. 319·United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania·1901
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
JOHNSON v. COLUMBIA PHONOGRAPH CO. SAME v. NATIONAL GRAPHOPHONE CO.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
January 28, 1901.)
Nos. 12, 13.
Patents — Suits for Infringement — Pleading.
Unless under exceptional circumstances, a complainant in a suit ior infringement will not be required to specify in bis bill the particular claims of the patent relied on.
In Equity. Suits ior infringement of patent. On motions to require complainant to specify the claims of the patent relied on.
Horace Pettit, for complainant.
Philip Mauro, for respondents.
Pleading in infringement suits, see note to Caldwell v. Powell, 39 C. C. A. 595.
[MAJORITY — DALLAS, Circuit Judge.]
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
The practice adopted in Russell v. Repeating Arms Co. (C. C.) 97 Fed. 634, and followed In two instances-in the Southern district of 3srew York, is certainly exceptional. The propriety of its enforcement in those cases need not be questioned,' but I have not been convinced that it should be insisted upon in those now before this court. Therefore the defendants’ motions to require the complainant to specify the claims relied on are denied.