William Kneeland Townsend
Judge Townsend no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Townsend decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He found indefinite, unsupported testimony about old prior use insufficient to defeat patent relief.
“The new evidence of alleged prior use is not only discredited by the failure to produce exhibits and by its antiquity and indefiniteness, but because it fails to show that by these uses the new results of the new invention of the patent in suit were produced. Let a decree be entered for an injunction and an accounting.”
He treated the importer’s lack of shipment-specific evidence as a decisive reason to uphold the customs assessment.
“The single witness produced on behalf of. the importers admitted that he knew nothing about this specific importation. Upon the report of the appraiser the board Overruled the protest. The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.”
Cautions
He declined to decide patent originality on demurrer when evidence might establish a protectable design.
“The court has no personal knowledge as to these matters, and does not understand that, in a hearing on a demurrer, it is its duty to investigate the prior art. As a matter of fact, the writer supposed that the ordinary horseshoe calk was an integral part of the horseshoe, hammered to a point by a blacksmith. It is perhaps possible that evidence might be introduced to show that said design was patentable, as a ‘new and original shape or configuration of an article of manufacture.’ Tbe demurrer is therefore overruled.”
He denied preliminary relief despite possible infringement when urgent delivery of defense equipment outweighed interim restraint.
“[ am not satisfied that defendant’s proposed construction will not infringe certain claims of the patent in suit. But, as it is admitted that defendant is financially responsible, tbe motion will be denied on the ground that defendant is under contract to furnish the guns in question to the government of the United (States within six weeks from the present time, for use in time of war for coast defense, and under the pressure of immediate and impending danger. In these circumstances, the defendant should not be restrained from delivering such necessary war material to the government.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In these circumstances it now seems best to formally dismiss the bill without prejudice on the ground that the complainant has through inadvertence failed to sufficiently establish priority of invention.”
“The second exception is overruled. *800On his motion for punitive damages, libelant cites The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546, 4 L. Ed. 456; Gallagher v. The Yankee, Hoff. Op. 456, Fed. Cas. No. 5,196; Publishing Co. v. Monroe, 19 C. C. A.) 429, 73 Fed. 196; The Mascotte (D. C.) 72 Fed. 684; The Normannia (D. C.) 62 Fed. 469. These cases do not support his contention.' In none of them were any exemplary damages allowed against -the vessel. In the only case where exemplary damages were allowed (The Yankee v. Gallagher, Fed. Cas. No. 18,124), the proceeding in rem was dismissed on exception to the jurisdiction,' and damages were awarded against the individual respondents under the proceeding in personam. In The Amiable Nancy the court held that, while the actual wrongdoers in the maritime trespass might be responsible in exemplary damages, the owners of the privateer were not responsible, beyond the actual loss or injury sustained. This case is cited and approved in Railway Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101, 13 Sup. Ct. 261, 37 L. Ed. 97, where it was held that a corporation is not liable to exemplary or’ punitive damages in the absence of evidence that it actually participated in or ratified such act, or was guilty of such willfulness or recklessness as amounted to criminality and should be punished. No case has been cited to support the claim that in a proceeding in rem the offending thing can be made to answer for damages other than those actually received. Nor is any reason perceived why such damages should be allowed. In proceedings in rem in the English admiralty the very fact that damage was caused by the willful misconduct of the master of a vessel is sufficient reason for dismissing the libel, inasmuch as the English admiralty treats the process in rem as a mere meahs to enforce the jus in personam. In the American admiralty a 'tort creates a maritime lien or privilege, — a jus in re. This lien or privilege, however, is only as security for actual damages for the wrong done, for which the ship herself is bound to make compensation. The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 113, 122, 18 Sup. Ct. 544, 42 L. Ed. 969; The China, 7 Wall. 53, 19 L. Ed. 67. In the present case the commissioner has awarded libelant the full amount of damages claimed in his libel. The report of the commissioner is accepted, and the motion for exemplary damages is denied.”
“The report of the commissioner is accepted, and the motion for exemplary damages is denied.”
“I feel obliged to reverse the decision of the board of general appraisers.”
“The report is referred back to the master to enable him to correct any errors of computation or transcription which he may find therein, and with leave to complainants to introduce further evidence as to damages, if they desire so to do.”
“the decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed. From the said affirmance should be excepted 12 certain entries as to which the protests were not seasonably filed. As to these entries the decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed. End of Cases in Yol. 106.”
“The exceptions are overruled, and the report is accepted.”
“The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.”
“The report of the commissioner is accepted”
“it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said decree, to wit, the decree entered on or about the 1st day of January, 1900, be, and the same is hereby, vacated and annulled, And that this cause be dismissed. It is further ordered that said International Tooth Crown Company pay the disbursements incurred in the said application for vacation of said decree. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as implicating any of the solicitors or counsel for complainant; for they are exonerated from all knowledge of or participation in said collusion.”
“this court would not be justified in overruling the decision of the board of general appraisers upon mere inference, and their decision is therefore affirmed.”
“the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.”
A historical record
Judge Townsend 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.