Brown v. Davis

116 U.S. 237, 6 S. Ct. 379, 29 L. Ed. 659, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1759
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 11, 1886
Docket100
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 116 U.S. 237 (Brown v. Davis) 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
Brown v. Davis, 116 U.S. 237, 6 S. Ct. 379, 29 L. Ed. 659, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1759 (1886).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, on reissued letters patent No. 8589, granted to Charles F. Davis and William Allen, February 18, 1879, for an “improvement in grain drills,” the original patent, No. 74,515, having been granted to said Davis, as inventor, February 18, 1868. The application for the reissue was filed January 24, 1879. The defendes set up in the answer are, want of utility and novelty, invalidity of the reissue, and nón-infringement. The specifications of ‘the original and reissued patents are here placed side by side, the part? in each not found in the other being in italic:

Original.
“ Be it known that I, Charles F. Davis, of Auburn, in the county of Cayuga, and- State of New York, have invented certain new; and useful improvements in' grain drills; and Ido hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description of the same, reference being had to the ac *239 companying drawings, making a part of this specification, in which Figure 1 represents a top plan of the drill, with the seed-box removed, but its position shown by red lines, to show the parts underneath it. Figure 2 represents the crank-rod or shaft to which the front ends of the drag-bars are attached, when detached from the machine. Figv/re 3 represents-an end view of the drill, with the wheel removed, to show the parts behind it, and representing, by black, dotted and red lines, the several operative parts, and their- positions under the changes of the machine or its parts. Similar letters of reference, where they occur in the separate figures, denote like parts in all of the drawings.
The object and purpose of my invention a/re to shift or change the seeding shoes or hoes from a straight'to a zigzag line, and vice versa, and, further, to so hang the shoes or hoes, as, in addition to the shifting process, to admit of being raised separately, or the whole series together, as may be found necessary.
To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to *240 describe the same with reference to the drawings:

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

Related

Pilley v. United States
74 Fed. Cl. 489 (Federal Claims, 2006)
Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp.
988 F. Supp. 1109 (N.D. Illinois, 1997)
Davies v. United States
31 Fed. Cl. 769 (Federal Claims, 1994)
Decca Ltd. v. United States
640 F.2d 1156 (Court of Claims, 1980)
Application of Charles D. Prater and James Wei
415 F.2d 1393 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1969)
Bacon American Corp. v. Super Mold Corp. of California
229 F. Supp. 998 (N.D. California, 1964)
Crowson v. Dennington
141 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Arkansas, 1956)
Permutit Co. v. Village of Poynette
61 F. Supp. 305 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1945)
Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.
137 F.2d 722 (Ninth Circuit, 1943)
Mantz v. Kersting
29 F. Supp. 706 (S.D. California, 1939)
Wilcox v. Danner
53 F.2d 711 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Michigan Carton Co. v. Sutherland Paper Co.
29 F.2d 179 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)
Egry Register Co. v. Standard Register Co.
267 F. 186 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
National Tube Co. v. Mark
216 F. 507 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
Loraine Development Co. v. General Electric Co.
198 F. 100 (N.D. New York, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 U.S. 237, 6 S. Ct. 379, 29 L. Ed. 659, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-davis-scotus-1886.