PRICE
v.
KELLY
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.
A patent infringement case where the appellant charged the appellee with infringing certain patented technology, but the lower court found no infringement. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving infringement because critical evidence—including the patent itself, accompanying drawings, and models—was either missing from the record or not presented to the Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
•Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is very imperfectly presented. No one appears for the appellee, and the record is incomplete. The bill charges the appellee with an infringement of certain letters patent issued to and owned by the appellant. The answer attacks the validity of the patent, and denies the infringement. The court below, with out passing on the other questions, held there was no infringement. The appellee evidently claimed under a patent to himself, which, with the accompanying drawings-and certain models, was in evidence. This evidence is not before us. Neither the patent nor the drawings are in the record, and the models have not been brought up. Nor have we been able to find anywhere in the record a satisfactory description of the structure which the appellee uses. The burden of proving the infringement is on the appellant. The necessary proof in this respect has not been made, and the decree below is consequently Affirmed.
Mr. J. J. Noah and Mr. C. K. Davis for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolens v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 703 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1983)…district judge failed to apply the doctrine of equivalents. A. General Rules Relevant to Infringement Actions In a patent infringement action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving infringement. Price v. Kelly, 154 U.S. 669, 670, 14 S.Ct. 1208, 26 L.Ed. 634 (1881). The claims of a patent are what define the scope of the invention. E.g., Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 11, 55 S.Ct. 279, 283, 79 L.Ed. 721 (1935). For infringement of a product patent to be found, each element of the claim must be found in the…1 / 2