U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania November 8, 1889, No. 1 (Pratt v. Lloyd)

BUTLER, District Judge.

An extended discussion of th is case is unnecessary.

It is scarcely disputed that the defendants’ device infringes the reissued patent. It plainly does infringe.

The defendants’ position — that the reissue is void because of anticipation and unjustifiable enlargement of specifications and claims — cannot be adopted.