OCR Text |
Show BUTTE & SUPERIOR RENEWS LITIGhTI New Point Is Raised in Famous Fa-mous Suit Regarding the Flotation Process. Special to The Tribune. BUTTE, Mont,, March 31. In the feUeral court a Vipplementa auswer has bPn filed by J. Bruce Kremer, attorney for the Butte & Superior Mining company, com-pany, iu the suit of the Minerals Separation Sepa-ration company, limited, involving the right to the use of the oil flotation pro-cts pro-cts in mining. The suit 01 the Minerals Separation, company, limited, against Hyde was heard in the federal court here and the patent claimed by the Separation company com-pany was declared valid by the, court. An appeal to the court of appeals at San Francisco resulted iu the local court being be-ing reversed. The supreme court then heard the case on appeal from the court at San Francisco and sustained the local lo-cal federal court in part, holding that the Separation company was entitled to patent rights in-part of the process. The common law provides that where a patent is invalid in part it is invalid altogether. In order to abate the rigor ! of the common law in that respect a federal statute was passed whicn provides pro-vides that where a patent is declared in-; in-; valid in part it still may remain valid as to the remainder, provided the owner of the patent disclaims right to the portion por-tion declared invalid. This the Minerals Separation company did not do aud Mr. Kremer raises the unique contention that having failed to take advantage of the privilege granted by the United States of retaining the valid rights under the patent by disclaiming dis-claiming the invalid portions, the Separation Sepa-ration company has forfeited all rights under the patent. In the argument of Mr. Kremer in the supplemental answer filed it is set , forth: As an additional reason for filing the supplemental answer the defendant de-fendant desires to interpose a defense de-fense that the plaintiff is estopped from asserting or claiming that its said alleged patent, or any claim j thereof, is infringed by the use of j an amount of oil exceeding five- ! tenths of J per cent od the weight j of ore treated at a given time, for j the reason that the said plaintiff in a judicial proceeding has stated that its invention was not practiced bv an amount of oil in excess of five-tenths of 1 per cent on the weight of the ore treated, and by the further statements in a judicial proceeding that its invention was not reached until the amount of oil reached and fell below five-tenths of 1 per cent on the ore treated; that each of said statements was. made in a judicial proceeding in a court having jurisdiction of the subject sub-ject matter since the joinder of issue is-sue in this case; that by reason of said statements the said plaintiff is now precluded and estopped from asserting in this court of equity that its invention embraces more j than that described and claimed by them as aforesaid. The matter embraced in the supple-' mental answer will come up when the , case is heard, April .16. |