Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus

Supreme Court

Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus

105 U.S. 94, 26 L. Ed. 939, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2095

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1882

Docket203

StatusPublished

Cited by107 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 94 (Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus) 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

Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U.S. 94, 26 L. Ed. 939, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2095 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Woods,

after stating the case, delivered the opinión of the court.

A comparison of' the drawing which is appended to- patent No.' 8814, with cut No¡ 34 of the Holthaus Circular,- which it is admitted represents show-cases manufactured and sold by the defendants, during and since January, 1877, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of the former, excepting a slight inclination backwards, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, of the glass constituting the 'front of the elevated portions of the case; We think, therefore, that the infringement is clearly eátablished.

The attempt to prove that the complainants were not the first- inventors of the design covered by their- letters-patent has entirely failed. The only evidence -offered on this branch of the defence are the - publications designated.' as Maws’ Price Current and the Wiegal, Catalogue. The first of these bears date-in 1869, and the latter in 1872. After a.careful search through both, we have been unable to- find any design for a-show'-casé which remotely resembles that described in. the complainants’ patent.

The design patented by the complainants differs essentially from any other which has -been callea to our attention. It is not covered by the other patents which are set out in the record. Whether it is more graceful or beautiful than older designs is not- for us to decide. It is sufficient if it is new and useful.

The patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and neither of these presumptions has been- rebutted by the evidence. On the contrary, they are strengthened. No anticipation of; the design is shown, although the attempt hás been made to prove, anticipation. The fact that it has been *97 infringed by defendants, is sufficient to establish’its utility, at least as against them. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. Pat. Rep. 207.

' Our .conclusion is that the complainants have a valid patent which the..defendantschave infringed. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing their bill must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion ; and it is

So ordered.

Me. Justice Geay did. not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.

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

Mr. Justice Woods,

after stating the case, delivered the opinión of the court.

A comparison of' the drawing which is appended to- patent No.' 8814, with cut No¡ 34 of the Holthaus Circular,- which it is admitted represents show-cases manufactured and sold by the defendants, during and since January, 1877, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of the former, excepting a slight inclination backwards, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, of the glass constituting the 'front of the elevated portions of the case; We think, therefore, that the infringement is clearly eátablished.

The attempt to prove that the complainants were not the first- inventors of the design covered by their- letters-patent has entirely failed. The only evidence -offered on this branch of the defence are the - publications designated.' as Maws’ Price Current and the Wiegal, Catalogue. The first of these bears date-in 1869, and the latter in 1872. After a.careful search through both, we have been unable to- find any design for a-show'-casé which remotely resembles that described in. the complainants’ patent.

The design patented by the complainants differs essentially from any other which has -been callea to our attention. It is not covered by the other patents which are set out in the record. Whether it is more graceful or beautiful than older designs is not- for us to decide. It is sufficient if it is new and useful.

The patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and neither of these presumptions has been- rebutted by the evidence. On the contrary, they are strengthened. No anticipation of; the design is shown, although the attempt hás been made to prove, anticipation. The fact that it has been *97 infringed by defendants, is sufficient to establish’its utility, at least as against them. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. Pat. Rep. 207.

' Our .conclusion is that the complainants have a valid patent which the..defendantschave infringed. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing their bill must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion ; and it is

So ordered.

Me. Justice Geay did. not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 U.S. 94, 26 L. Ed. 939, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehnbeuter-v-holthaus-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack