BENNET
v.
FOWLER
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 holder sued for infringement of two hay-lifting patents, and the defendants objected that the patents were improperly divided rather than issued as a single patent and that their machines did not infringe. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of both patents, holding that the Patent Office has discretion to divide related improvements into separate patents when appropriate, and that the defendants failed to rebut proof that their machines were substantially similar to the patented designs.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
An objection has' been taken by counsel for the defendants that the court erred in affirming the validity of the two patents, Nos. 1869, 1870.
It may be, that if the improvements set forth in both specifications had been incorporated into one patent, the patentee taking care to protect himself as to all his improvements by proper and several claims, it would have been sufficient. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to lay down any general rule by which to determine when a given invention or improvements shall be embraced in one, two, or more patents. Some discretion must necessarily be left on tbis subject to the head of the Patent Office. It5is often a nice and perplexing question. It is true, in the present case both patents relate to the lifting and depositing a load of hay in a mow of a barn, or in a rick or shed. But; in No. 1870, the lifter is somewhat differently constructed, so as to adapt it specially to the stacking of hay, which, doubtless, led the office to divide the improvements, and issue separate patents. The improvements were embraced'in one, in tbe original patent.
The counsel also objects that the machines of the defendants do not infringe the complainant’s patents, but, if he .had intended to contest this point, he should have introduced proof to this effect. Proof of the infringements given, that the machines made and used by the defendants were substantially like the complainant’s, was sufficient, if not rebutted. Models were also produced on the argument before the court, which confirm this proof.
Decree aeeirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co., 264 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1924)…aims 7 and 8 are concerned, simply stood by and awaited developments. We are not here dealing, therefore, with the simple case of a division of a single application for several independent inventions, Patent Office Rules 41 and 42; Bennet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445, 448; American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Prosperity Co., Inc., 295 Fed. 819, but with a case of unreasonable delay and neglect on the part of the applicant and his assignee in bringing forward claims broader than those [*466] originally sought. The r…
-
United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1904)…, however, have only recognized and enforced the exercise of .a discretion of the Patent Office, the question occdrs, what is the extent of such discretion and can it be expressed and fixed in an inflexible rule such as rule 41? In Bennet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445, a discretion in the Patent Office was recognized. The question arose upon the validity of two reissued patents for'improvements, which “had been embraced in one, in the original patent.” The court said: “It may be, that if the improvements set for…
-
Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1878)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence