Bennet v. Fowler

75 U.S. 445, 19 L. Ed. 431, 8 Wall. 445, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1122
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 29, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 75 U.S. 445 (Bennet v. Fowler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennet v. Fowler, 75 U.S. 445, 19 L. Ed. 431, 8 Wall. 445, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1122 (1869).

Opinion

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 *448 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Application of Horneman
194 F.2d 108 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1952)
Application of Coleman
189 F.2d 976 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1951)
In re Hirschhorn
162 F.2d 489 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1947)
Kalo Inoculant Co. v. Funk Bros. Seed Co.
161 F.2d 981 (Seventh Circuit, 1947)
In re Moss
101 F.2d 536 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1939)
In Re Ferenci
83 F.2d 279 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1936)
In Re Pedersen
73 F.2d 928 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)
Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.
264 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court, 1924)
American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Prosperity Co.
295 F. 819 (Second Circuit, 1924)
In re Briede
27 App. D.C. 298 (D.C. Circuit, 1906)
In re Frasch
27 App. D.C. 25 (D.C. Circuit, 1906)
United States Ex Rel. Steinmetz v. Allen
192 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1904)
United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen
22 App. D.C. 56 (D.C. Circuit, 1903)
In re Frasch
20 App. D.C. 298 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1902)
Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb
89 F. 982 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1898)
Peifer v. Brown & Co.
85 F. 780 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1898)
Sessions v. Romadka
21 F. 124 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1884)
Spring v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co.
9 F. 505 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1881)
McKay v. Dibert
5 F. 587 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 U.S. 445, 19 L. Ed. 431, 8 Wall. 445, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennet-v-fowler-scotus-1869.