We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
THE MOVING PICTURE NEWS .^9
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY
80 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
In The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, ^
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHICAGO FILM EXCHANGE,
Defendant.
This cause having been brought to final hearing upon pleadings and proofs, and upon Defendant's motions to strike out testimony taken on behalf of the Plaintiff and for leave to take further testimony on behalf of the Defendant, and having been argued by Melville Church, Esq., of counsel for the plaintiff, and by Harry N. Low, Esq., William Houston Kenyon, Esq., and William J. Wallace, Esq. of counsel for defendant, and having been duly considered by the Court, it is, by the Court, this 23rd day of December, 191 1, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, as foUows:
I. That reissue letters patent No. 12 192, granted to Thomas A. Edison, on the i2th day of January, 1904, for Kinetoscopic Film, referred to in the plaintiff's bill of complaint, are good and valid in law as to the 2nd claim thereof.
II. That Thomas A. Edison was the original, first, and true inventor of the improvements described in said reissue letters patent and particularly claimed in the said 2nd claim thereof.
III. That the plaintiff, Motion Picture Patents Company, has good title to said reissue letters patent.
IV. That the defendant, Chicago Film Exchange, has infringed upon said reissued letters patent No. 12 192, as to the said second claim thereof.
V. That a perpetual injunction issue against the said defendant, Chicago Film Exchange, prohibiting it, its ofBcers, directors, attorneys, agents, servants and workmen, from directly or indirectly making, using or selling Kinetoscopic or Motion Picture Films containing or embodying the invention set forth in said reissue letters patent No. 12 192, and particularly covered by claim 2 thereof
VI. That the plaintiff do recover from the defendant the profits, gains and advantages which the defendant has received or made or that have accrued to it by reason of its said infringement of said reissue letters patent No. 12,192 since the date of said reissue letters patent, and also the damages which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of said infringement, to be assessed as provided by law.
VII. That this cause be and is hereby referred to the Auditor of this Court to take and state an account of said gains, profits and advantages and to assess such damages, and to report thereon with all convenient speed; and that the defendant herein, Chicago Film Exchange, its officers, directors, attorneys, clerks, servants and workmen be and are hereby directed to attend before said Auditor, from time to time, as required, and to produce before him such books, papers, vouchers and documents and to submit to such oral examination as the said Auditor may require.
VIII. That the plaintiff do recover of the defendant its costs in this suit to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.
IX. That defendant's motion to strike out parts of rebuttal testimony of the plaintiff as not being proper evidence in rebuttal, and defendant's motion to be allowed to take further testimony strictly in surrebuttal, heretofore reserved for the final hearing, are hereby denied.
WENDELL P. STAFFORD, Justice.
In Equity No. 28,605
Decree entered December 23, 191 1.