Decision in Harrisburg Filter Case

Decision in Harrisburg Filter Case

On September 15, 1914, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, handed down an opinion reversing the decision of the lower Court in the so-called Negative Head case brought by The New York Continental Jewell Filtration Company against the City of Harrisburg, Pa. The opinion starts with a brief statement of the claims of the patents in suit and follows with a general discussion of the principles of filtration and the state of the art. A very extended review of the language of the various patents referred to in the suit is then given, followed by a discussion of the principles of suction as applied to this case. The court points out various patents which were cited by the city as anticipations of the patents in suit and reviews in this connection several instances of prior use claimed by the city, and proceeds then to a discussion of the scientific principles involved in the patents in suit and the theories of the patents as disclosed by the evidence. The judge writing the opinion gives the impression that the plaintiff company has not proved its case in this regard, and cites the testimony of several witnesses on both sides which apparently created in the court’s mind a doubt about the matter, but the judge expressly refrains from making any decision on these matters. This is clearly indicated in the summing up of all this discussion in the following words: “However, it is probably enough to say that (at the best) the evidence in behalf of the company leaves us in much uncertainty whether the theories of the patents are sound. We do not feel bound to go to the length of declaring the patents invalid—the re-issue patent, indeed, has already expired, leaving the patentee only a claim for royalties—but we are prepared to say that while the subject is so surrounded by uncertainty the company cannot reasonably object to the application on a test that tries the Harrisburg filters by the theories of the patents.” The court specifically declines to state that the patents in suit are not valid, or that the scientific principles and theories upon which the plaintiff company based its claims are incorrect. But in reviewing the testimony of what actually happened at Harrisburg, the court decides that that was not sufficient to create an infringement, concluding with the following words: "In our opinion, therefore, the case may safely be decided by finding upon the evidence that the city has not infringed either patent.” In brief, it appears that this decision, while reversing the decision of the Lower Court asto Harrisburg, does not decide that the theories of the court below were wrong with respect to the basic principles upon which that court decided the case, and leave open the entire question as to validity of the patents.

On September 15, 1914, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, handed down an opinion reversing the decision of the lower Court in the so-called Negative Head case brought by The New York Continental Jewell Filtration Company against the City of Harrisburg, Pa. The opinion starts with a brief statement of the claims of the patents in suit and follows with a general discussion of the principles of filtration and the state of the art. A very extended review of the language of the various patents referred to in the suit is then given, followed by a discussion of the principles of suction as applied to this case. The court points out various patents which were cited by the city as anticipations of the patents in suit and reviews in this connection several instances of prior use claimed by the city, and proceeds then to a discussion of the scientific principles involved in the patents in suit and the theories of the patents as disclosed by the evidence. The judge writing the opinion gives the impression that the plaintiff company has not proved its case in this regard, and cites the testimony of several witnesses on both sides which apparently created in the court’s mind a doubt about the matter, but the judge expressly refrains from making any decision on these matters. This is clearly indicated in the summing up of all this discussion in the following words: “However, it is probably enough to say that (at the best) the evidence in behalf of the company leaves us in much uncertainty whether the theories of the patents are sound. We do not feel bound to go to the length of declaring the patents invalid—the re-issue patent, indeed, has already expired, leaving the patentee only a claim for royalties—but we are prepared to say that while the subject is so surrounded by uncertainty the company cannot reasonably object to the application on a test that tries the Harrisburg filters by the theories of the patents.” The court specifically declines to state that the patents in suit are not valid, or that the scientific principles and theories upon which the plaintiff company based its claims are incorrect. But in reviewing the testimony of what actually happened at Harrisburg, the court decides that that was not sufficient to create an infringement, concluding with the following words: "In our opinion, therefore, the case may safely be decided by finding upon the evidence that the city has not infringed either patent.” In brief, it appears that this decision, while reversing the decision of the Lower Court asto Harrisburg, does not decide that the theories of the court below were wrong with respect to the basic principles upon which that court decided the case, and leave open the entire question as to validity of the patents.