FAULKNER
v.
GIBBS

U.S. | 1949-11-07
No. 19
Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere., Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
338 U.S. 267 Supreme Court of the United States (1949) Caution
Also reported at: 94 L. Ed. 62 · 70 S. Ct. 25 · 1949 U.S. LEXIS 3084 · SCDB 1949-008
Cited by 77 cases

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.

Holding

The Court held that the patent was valid and infringed, affirming the lower courts' findings.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner was found to have infringed respondent's Patent No. 1,906,260. The lower courts found the patent valid based on the combination of elements…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Patentable Combination Patent Validity Patent Infringement

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patentable Combination cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 170 F. 2d 34 (1948). Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. S. 1 (1946), we granted certiorari.

The record, briefs and arguments of counsel lead us to the view that Halliburton, supra, is inapposite. We there held the patent invalid because its language was too broad at the precise point of novelty. In the instant case, the patent has been sustained because of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element.

After the suit in this cause was initiated in the District Court, petitioner modified his device. The courts below held that this modification was insubstantial and did not place petitioner outside the scope of respondent’s patent.

We will not disturb the concurrent findings upon the issues presented to us in the petition for certiorari. We are not persuaded that the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (23 total)

  • Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977)
    …be inadequate.24 For the reasons we have summarized [*343], there is no warrant for this Court to disturb the findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals on this basic issue. See Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403, 408-409; Faulkner v. Gibbs, 338 U. S. 267, 268; United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 751; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S. 63, 67; United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14; Baker v. Schofield, 243 U. S. 114, 118; Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 24.…
  • Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972)
    …This is an unjustified departure from our long-established practice not to reverse findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts unless shown to be clearly erroneous. See, e. g., Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403, 408-409 (1962); Faulkner v. Gibbs, 338 U. S. 267, 268 (1949); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 751 (1947); United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S. 63, 67 (1932); United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1, 14 (1926); Baker v. Schofield, 243 U. S. 114, 118 (1917); Towson…
  • Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976)
    …, and n. 14. The “two-court” rule is the “long-established practice not to reverse findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts unless shown to be clearly erroneous. See, e. g., Blau v. Lehman, 368 U. S. 403, 408-409 (1962); Faulkner v. Gibbs, 338 U. S. 267, 268 (1949); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 751 (1947); United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S. 63, 67 (1932); United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1, 14 (1926); Baker v. Schofield, 243 U. S. 114, 118 (1917); Towson…

Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw