Roemer v. Bernheim

Supreme Court of the United States
Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U.S. 103 (1889)

Roemer v. Bernheim

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

After the case had been heard and decided upon its merits, the plaintiff could not .file a disclaimer in court, or introduce new evidence upon that or any other subject, -except at a rehearing granted by the court, upon such terms as it thought fit to impose. The granting or refusal, absolute or conditional, of a rehearing in equity, as of a new trial at law, rests in the discretion of the court in which the case has been heard or tried, and is not a subject of appeal. The terms imposed as a condition precedent to a rehearing not having been complied with, the disclaimer was not in the case.

The construction which the court gavé to the claims of the patent as-originally issued was indisputably correct. So construed, it is' hardly denied by the plaintiff, and is conclusively proved by the evidence, that the patent is void for want of novelty.

Decree affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
ROEMER v. BERNHEIM
Cited By
26 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
The granting or refusal, absolute or conditional, of a rehearing in equity, rests in the discretion of the court, and is not a subject of appeal: After a suit in equity for the infringement of a patent has been heard and decided in favor of the defendant on the merits, the plaintiff cannot put in evidence a disclaimer, except at a rehearing granted by the court, upon such terms as it sees fit to impose. Letters patent No. 208,541, granted to William Eoemer, September 1, 1878, for improvements in locks for satchels, are void for want of novelty.'