Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/458

 444 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Anilin v. Hamilton Manuf'g Co. 13 0. G. 273, before Judge Sliepley, in February, 1878, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, the decision was that section 25 of the act of July, 1870, now section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, did not apply to a re-issue granted by the United States in April, 1871, of a patent originally granted by the United States in October, 18G9, and that, therefore, the re-issue did not expire in December, 1871, when the prior foreign patent, taken in June, 1869, expired, Nothing was said as to whether it would expire in June, 1883, or in June, 1886, or in October, 1886, or in April, 1888. �In Gof V. 'Stqford 14 0. G. 748, before Mr. Justice Cliffoi-d and Judge Knowles, in October, 1878, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ehode Island, the United States patent was granted October 3, 1865, for 17 years from that day. An English patent had been previously granted to the same patentee, for the same invention. The English patent was dated June 13, 1863, and was for 14 years; it was sealed December 8, 1863, and the complete specification was filed December ^2, 1863. The question arose as to whether the United States patent had expired. It had expired De- cember 12, 1877, if it remained in force for only 14 years from December 12, 1863. If it remained in force for 17 years from De- cember 12, 1863, or for 17 years from October 3, 1865, it was equally in force in October, 1878, for the purposes of the injunction, which the court granted. The only question raised, in pleading or argument, seems to have been as to whether the patent had expired. When in the future it would expire, was not directiy involved. The contention of the defendant in the case seems to have been that, because of the act of 1870, the United States patent had expired when the foreign patent expired, namely, June 13, 1877. The court held that the ac of 1870 did not apply to the case, because the patent was granted before that act was passed. But Mr. Justice Clifford, in the decision, went on to say that the patent would remain in force for 17 years "from the time it was granted," because it was granted under the act of 1861. He seems to have meant for 17 years from October 3, 1865. We cannot regard the case, in that respect, as a decision on a point necessarily involved. With the highest regard for all the jadicial views of so eminent a judge as Mr. Justice Clifford, particu- larly as to questions arising under the law of patents, our examina- tion of the question directiy involved in the present case bas led us to different views, and to the belief that such question was not argued ���i- ��� �