William Mershon Lanning

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1909–1912 Appointed by William Howard Taft (Republican) 25 signed orders read

Judge Lanning no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Lanning decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Treats copyright protection as wholly statutory and requires affirmative proof of every statutory condition precedent.

“Copyright protection is wholly statutory, and one who claims it must prove affirmatively his performance of all the statutory conditions precedent to his right of action.”

Requires every element of a patented mechanical combination or a clear equivalent before finding infringement.

“A patent for a mechanical combination is not infringed except by a device containing all the elements of that combination. The elements of the infringing device must be the very elements of the patented combination or clear mechanical equivalents *70thereof.”

Procedural preferences

Limits a jury submission to theories supported by the pleadings.

“The. declaration contained no averment of assumption by the defendant, and, as no such question was presented by the pleadings, the charge in the respect mentioned was erroneous.”

Refuses to use the doctrine of equivalents to delete an element expressly placed in a patent claim.

“we do not feel at liberty, by the application of the doctrine of equivalents, to read out of any one of these three claims what the inventor has in plain terms put into them.”

Cautions

Values uniformity of decisions in tariff administration.

“Uniformity of decisions, especially in administering the tariff act, is most desirable.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. E. J. Lavino & Co.
· 1909-11-15
Appeal (government-appellant) Denied

“The decree in each of the three cases is therefore affirmed.”

George A. Ohl & Co. v. Falstrom & Tornqvist Co.
· 1909-11-27
Appeal (patent-plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“Our conclusion, therefore, is that the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed, with costs; and it is so ordered.”

Becker v. Exchange Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania
· 1910-01-31
Appeal (insured-plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed, with costs.”

General Electric Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Co.
· 1910-01-31
Appeal (patent-plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The decree of the Circuit Court will therefore be affirmed, with costs.”

United States v. O. G. Hempstead & Son
· 1910-02-08
Appeal (government-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.”

Horton Trust Co. v. Standard Steel Car Co.
· 1910-02-15
Appeal (patent-plaintiffs-appellants) Granted in part

“The decree of th.e Circuit Court will be reversed, and the record remanded, with instructions to enter a decree adjudging the patent to be valid, and awarding a permanent injunction against future infringement.”

Soisson v. First Nat. Bank of Pittsburgh
· 1910-09-21
Appeal (trustee-appellant) Denied

“We find no error in the decree of the District Court, and it is accordingly affirmed, with costs.”

Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros.
· 1910-09-21
Appeal (patent-plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“We think the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed, with.! costs; and it is so ordered.”

Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Quick
· 1910-10-27
Appeal (equipment-vendors-appellants) Granted in part

“Decrees as to cases Nos. 52 and 55 affirmed,- with costs. Decrees as to cases Nos. 53 and 54 reversed, with costs.”

Columbia Wagon Co. v. Eagle Wagon Works
· 1910-11-28
Appeal (patent-defendant-appellant) Denied

“Consequently the decree of the Circuit Court, entered in conformity with its opinion in 181 Ted. 148, is affirmed, with costs.”

Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. v. Pennsylvania Crusher Co.
· 1910-11-28
Appeal (patent-plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“The "decree of the Circuit Court will therefore be reversed, and a new decree entered, awarding an injunction and the usual accounting.”

Nu Bone Corset Co. v. Spirella Co.
· 1911-01-24
Appeal (patent-defendants-appellants) Granted

“The decree of the Circuit Court must accordingly be reversed, and the record remitted, with instructions to enter-a decree dismissing the bill of complaint.”

A historical record

Judge Lanning no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.