LEHNBEUTER
v.
HOLTHAUS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lehnbeuter held a patent for a decorative show-case design, and Holthaus manufactured and sold show-cases that were admittedly servile copies of the patented design with only negligible variations. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal and held that Lehnbeuter had a valid patent that Holthaus had infringed, establishing that the patent was supported by evidence of novelty and utility and that no prior designs remotely resembled the patented design.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Woods,
after stating the case, delivered the opinión of the court.
A comparison of' the drawing which is appended to-patent No.' 8814, with cut No¡ 34 of the Holthaus Circular,- which it is admitted represents show-cases manufactured and sold by the defendants, during and since January, 1877, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of the former, excepting a slight inclination backwards, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, of the glass constituting the 'front of the elevated portions of the case; We think, therefore, that the infringement is clearly eátablished.
The attempt to prove that the complainants were not the first-inventors of the design covered by their-letters-patent has entirely failed. The only evidence -offered on this branch of the defence are the - publications designated.' as Maws’ Price Current and the Wiegal, Catalogue. The first of these bears date-in 1869, and the latter in 1872. After a.careful search through both, we have been unable to-find any design for a-show'-casé which remotely resembles that described in. the complainants’ patent.
The design patented by the complainants differs essentially from any other which has -been callea to our attention. It is not covered by the other patents which are set out in the record. Whether it is more graceful or beautiful than older designs is not-for us to decide. It is sufficient if it is new and useful.
The patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and neither of these presumptions has been-rebutted by the evidence. On the contrary, they are strengthened. No anticipation of; the design is shown, although the attempt hás been made to prove, anticipation. The fact that it has been infringed by defendants, is sufficient to establish’its utility, at least as against them. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. Pat. Rep. 207.
' Our .conclusion is that the complainants have a valid patent which the..defendantschave infringed. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing their bill must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion ; and it is
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Geay did. not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1894)…defence. For the grant of letters patent is prima faeie evidence that the patentee is the first inventor of the device described in, the letters patent and of its novelty. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486; Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94. Not only is the burden of proof to make good this defence upon the party setting it up, but it has been held that ‘ every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him.’ ” These two cases are closely in point. The plaintiff in this case, like th…
-
Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co., 225 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1912)…fringed by the defendant in the manufacture of several thousand transformers which sold for $955,000. The patent was itself evidence of the utility of Claim 4, and the defendant was estopped from denying that it was of value. Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94. But no matter how great its presumptive or actual value it did not follow that the defendant had made a profit by the sale of the infringing transformers. And so, having sued for profits, the Westinghouse Company was under the burden of showing the…
-
Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 (U.S. 1893)…f .181-2, under which the patent in Gorham Co. v. White, was granted. So that now where a new and original shape or configuration of an article of manufacture is claimed, its utility may be also an- element for consideration. Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94. [*679] But as remarked by Mr. Justice Brown, then District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Northrup v. Adams, 12 O. G. 430, and 2 Bann. & Ard. 567, 568, which was a bill for the infringement of a design patent for a cheese safe, the…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence