Mahn v. Harwood

112 U.S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. Ed. 665, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1889

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: December 1, 1884
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought on a patent relating to leather covers of “ base-balls and other similar articles.” The patent was originally issued to one James H. Osgood, of Boston, under date of May 21, 1872. The bill states that Osgood afterwards assigned this patent to Louis H. Mahn, the complainant below, appellant here. On the 11th of .April, 1876, it was reissued, and the suit is brought on the reissue against the Harwoods, charging infringement. Except in stating the nature of the invention, and the claims, the specifications of the original and reissued patents are precisely alike. The description and accompanying drawings are not changed.

Briefly stated, the specification describes a leather ball-cover composed of two hemispherical parts, each being moulded into form when in a wet state, and, after being dried, sewed together on to the ball by a peculiar stitch, called a double herring-bone stitch; then a second cover made in precisely the same manner, and sewed on to the ball, outside of the first cover, in such manner that the stitches of the two covers may cross each other at right angles.

In the ■ original patent it is stated that the nature of the invention consists, first, in the employment of a new stitch, called the double herring-bone secured stitch, whereby only one stitch can be broken at a time; second, in the employment of a binder of leather next the yarn of a base-ball, or as a first cover to other round articles, so stitched and put on that the outer covering when applied shall have its seams at right angles, or breaking joints, with the seams of the first cover; third, in making the leather covers of a hemispherical shape, by compression and crimping in properly shaped moulds with plungers, while wet, after which they are dried in shape and then softened by moisture, stretched on and sewed. The claims of the original patent are the two following, namely :

“ 1. A ball exterior, composed of two crimped hemispherical covers, A and B, having their respective seams x and y break joints, substantially as set forth.

“ 2. In combination with a ball whose exterior- is composed of two hemispherical covers A and B, with their respective seams * and y breaking joints, I claim the double herring-bone stitch formed of two threads, in the manner herein set forth.”

The letters A and B, in the drawing, designate the two covers, one outside of the other; and the letters x and y designate the respective stitches of those covers.

The whole invention claimed, therefore, in the original patent, was, first, the two leather covers (an outside one and an inside one), with their respective seams crossing at right angles ; and second, the double herring-bone stitch in combination with the two covers.

In the reissue it is stated that “ the nature of the invention consists, first, in the cover of a base-ball formed of two pieces of leather suitably secured to each other; second, the seams of a base-ball united by the double herring-bone knotted lock-stitch ; third, a base-ball covering consisting of an outer and an inner covering applied to the ball independently of each other; fourth, a base-ball covering consisting of independent outer and inner coverings made of hemispherical sections, the seams of the inner and outer covers arranged relatively to each other to break joints: ” and this reissue has the four following claims, namely: ■

“ 1. A base-ball cover formed of two pieces of leather, secured to each other by a single seam, substantially as and for the purpose specified.

“ 2. A base-ball cover having its seam united by the double herring-bone knotted lock-stitch, substantially as and for .the purpose specified.

“ 3. The covering of ■ a base-ball consisting of an outer and an inner covering, each of which is composed of two pieces of leather, and applied to the ball independently of each other, substantially as and for the purpose specified.

“ 4. A base-ball covering composed of independent inner and outer coverings, made up of hemispherical sections, the seams of the inner and outer covers arranged relatively to each other, to break joints, substantially as and for the purpose specified.”

It is apparent that, in the reissue, the claim of invention is greatly enlarged. The patentee claims therein, first, any and every single base-ball cover formed of two .pieces of leather, fastened together by a single seam, substantially as and for the purpose described; secondly, any and every base-ball cover having its seam united by the double herring-bone stitch, substantially, &c.; thirdly, every and any use of two covers on a base-ball, each made of two pieces of leather, and applied to the ball independently of each other, substantially, &c. The fourth claim is nearly equivalent to the first claim of the original patent. The others are all new.

It is clear, therefore, on the face of the patents, that the only-object of the reissue was to enlarge the claims. The description was not .altered in- the least. The claims, in the original patent were clear and explicit, one of them being substantially retained in the reissue. Nothing was altered, nothing was changed, but to multiply the claims and to make them broader. And this was done, not for the benefit of the original patentee, but for that of his assignee; and was done after the lapse .of nearly four years from the granting of the original patent. The case seems to come clearly within the principles laid dbwn in Miller v. The Brass Company, 104 U. S. 350, and if we were right in the conchisions arrived at in that case, we do not see how we can sustain the patent sued on in this. The counsel for the appellant seems tó be aware of this, and, in his argument directs his efforts, mainly to attack the principles there expressed, although they have been frequently reiterated in subsequent cases. We deem it proper, therefore, to say, once for all, that the views announced in Miller v. The Brass Company on the subject of reissuing patents for the purpose of expanding and enlarging the claim, were deliberately expressed and are still adhered to. As. the reasons for those views were quite fully gone into at that time, it is unnecessary to repeat them at •large. A few additional observations will suffice.

It was not intended then, and is not now, to question the conclusiveness, in suits for, infringements of patents, of the decisions of the Commissioner! on questions of fact necessary to be decided before issuing such patents, except as the statute gives specific defences in that regard. But the statutory defences are not the only defences which may be made against a patent. Where it is evident that the Commissioner, under a misconception of the law, has exceeded his authority in granting or reissuing a patent, there is no sound principle to prevent a party sued for its infringement from availing himself of the illegality, independently of any statutory permission so to do.

This is constantly done in land cases where patents have been issued which the land officers had no authority to issue, as, Avhere the lands have been previously granted, reser\Ted from sale, or appropriated to other uses. Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 426; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160; Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219; Meader v. Norton, 11 Wall. 442; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112; Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. 660; Leavenworth, &c., Railroad v. United States, 92 U. S. 733; Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209.

In cases of patents for inventions, a valid defence not given by the statute often arises where the question is, whether the thing patented amounts to a patentable invention. This being a question of law, the courts are not bound by the decision of the commissioner, although he must necessarily pass upon it. See Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Glue Co. v. Upton, 97. U. S. 3; Dunham v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187, 197-199; Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 199; Slawson v. Grand St. Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 649, 652; King v. Gallun, 109 U. S. 99, 101.

In this very matter of reissued patents it has also been frequently decided that it. is a goqd defence in a suit on such a patent to show that the Commissioner exceeded his authority in granting it. Such a defence is established By showing that the reissued patent is for a different -invention from that described in the original; inasmuch as the statute declares that it must be for the same invention. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531, 574 Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1; Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 560; Wood Paper Patent, 23 Wall. 566 ; and many other subsequent cases. * The same defence may be established by showing from the record that there was no inadvertence, accident or mistake in drawing up the specification of the original patent; for the statute only gives' a reissue when the original is defective by inadvertence, accident or mistake. Thus, in Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256, 259, the reissued patent embraced a claim which had been presented on the application for the original patent and rejected. It was apparent, therefore, that the omission of that claim in the ■ original was not, and could not have been, the result of inadvertence, accident or mistake, but was the result of design on the part of the Commissioner and acquiescence on the part of the patentee; and so far as that claim was concerned, the reissued patent was properly held to be void. See also James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356, 368. The proper remedy of the patentee when a claim applied' for is rejected,, is an appeal, and not an application for a reissue.

Such are some of the instances in which a patent issued contrary to law is held to be void. And it is no doubt a general rule that where the. Commissioner has exceeded his authority in granting or reissuing a patent, such fact furnishes a good defence to a suit brought for its infringement. There are stronger reasons for this defence against patents for inventions, which directly affect the citizen, than exist in the case of patents for land, which directly affect the government, and only indirectly the citizen.

Now, in our judgment, a patent, for an invention cannot lawfully be reissued for the mere purpose of enlarging tbe claim, unless there has been a clear mistake inadvertently committed in the wording of the claim, and the application for a reissue is made within a reasonably short period after the original patent was granted. The granting of such reissues after the- lapse of long periods of time is an abuse of the powér, and is founded on a total misconception of the law. • The Commissioner of Patents has evidently proceeded, in these cases, on the view that a patent may be reissued after any lapse of time, for the purpose of making a broader claim, by merely showing that the claim might have been broader than it was, and that it was inadvertently made tpo narrow at the time. In this we think he has been entirely im error. Lapse of time may be of small consequence on an application for the reissue of a patent on account of a defective specification or description, or where the original claim is' too broad. But there are substantial reasons, not applicable to these cases, why a claim cannot be enlarged and made broader after an undue lapse of time. The rights of the public here intervene, which are totally inconsistent with such tardy reissues; and the great opportunity and teiriptation to commit fraud after any considerable lapse of time, when the circumstances of the original application have passed out of mind, and the monopoly has proved to be of' great value, make it imperative on the' courts, as a dictate of justice and public policy, to hold the patentees strictly to the rule of reasonable diligence in making applications for this kind of reissues.

Conceding that it is for the Commissioner of Patents to, determine whether the insertion of too-narrow a claim arose from inadvertence, accident or mistake (unless where the matter is manifest from the record), the question whether the application for correction and reissue is or is not made within reasonable time is, in most if not all of such cases, a question which the court can determine as a question of law, by comparing the patent itself with the original patent, and, if necessary, with the record of its inception. The reason for .this was fully explained in the case of Miller v. The Brass Company. The taking out of a patent which has (as the law requires it to have) a specific claim, is notice to all the world, of the most public and solemn kind, that all those parts of the art, machine or manufacture set out - and described in the specification and not embraced in such specific claim, are not claimed by the patentee, — at least not claimed in and by that patent. If he'has a distinct patent for other parts, or has made application therefor, or has reserved the right to make such application, that is another matter, not. affecting the patent in question. But so far as that patent is concerned, the claim actually made operates in law as a disclaimer of what is not claimed; and of all this the law charges the patentee with the fullest notice.

Then, what is the situation ? The public is notified and informed by the most solemn act on the -part .of the patentee, that his claim, to invention is for such and such an element or combination, and for nothing more. Of course, what is not claimed is public property. The presumption is, and such is generally the fact, that what is not claimed was not invented by the patentee, but was known and used before- he made his invention. But, whether s.o or not,- his own act has made it public property if it was not so before. The patent itself, as soon as it is issued, is the evidence of this. The public has the undoubted right to use, and it is to be presumed does úse, what is not specifically claimed in the patent. Every day that passes after the issue of the patent adds tó the strength of this right, and increases the barrier against subsequent expansion of the claim by reissue under a pretence of inadvertence and mistake. If any such inadvertence or mistake has really occurred, it is generally easily discernible by an inspection of the patent itself; and any unreasonable delay in applying to have it corrected by a surrender and reissue is a just bar to such correction. If the specification is complicated and the claim is ambiguous or involved, the ■ patentee may be entitled to greater indulgence ; and Of this the court can rightfúlly judge in each case. No precise limit of time can be fixed and laid down for all cases; ‘ The courts will always exercise a proper liberality in favor of the patentee. -But in any case, by such delay as the court may deem unnecessary and • unreasonable, the- right to a reissue will be regarded as having been abandoned and lost,, and the Commissioner will be held to have exceeded his authority in granting it. Whenever it is manifest from the patent itself, compared with the original patent and cognate documents of record, or from the facts developed in the case, that the Commissioner must have disregarded the rules of law by which his authority to grant a reissue in such cases is governed, the patent will be considered as void to the extent of such illegality. It is then a-question of law, not a question of fact. As before stated, the case is entirely different from that of a reissue by reason of a defective specification or description, or on account of the claim being too broad. In these cases, the public interest is promoted by the change; whilst a reissue for the purpose of making a claim more broad and comprehensive is injurious to the public, since it takes from the public the use of that which it previously enjoyed, and which the original patent acknowledged its right to enjoy. We repeat then, if a patentee has not claiihed as much as he is entitled to claim, he is bound to discover the defect in reasonable time, or he loses all right to a reissue; and if the Commissioner of Patents, after the lapse of such reasonable time, undertakes to grant a reissue for the purpose of correcting the supposed mistake, he.exceeds his power, and acts under a mistaken view of. the law ; and the court, seeing this, has a right, and it is its duty, to declare the reissue pro tcmto void in any suit founded upon it.

The truth is (as was shown in Miller v. The Brass Company), that this class of cases, namely, reissues for the purpose of enlarging and expanding the claim of a patent, was not comprised within the literal terms of the law which created the power to reissue patents. But since the purpose of the statute undoubtedly was to provide that kind of relief which courts-of-equity have always given in cases of clear accident and' mistake in the drawing up of written instruments, it may fairly.lbe inferred that a mistake in a patent whereby the claim is mtófeHóo narrow, is within the equity, if not within the words,-of the statute. .Yet no court of equity, considering all the interests' involved, would ever grant relief in such a case without due diligence and promptness on the part of the patentee in seeking to have the error .corrected. It is just-one of those cases in which laches and unnecessary delay would be held to be a bar to such relief. And in extending the equity of the statute so as to embrace the case, the courts' should not overlook or disregard the conditions on which alone courts of equity would take any action, and also on which alone the Commissioner of Patents has any power to grant a Reissue.

As we have already stated, no invariable rule can be laid down as to what is reasonable time within which the patentee should seek for the correction of a claim which he considers too narrow. In Miller v. The Brass Company, analogy to the law of public use before an application for a patent, we suggested that a delay of two years in applying for such correction should be construed equally favorable tq the public.- But this was a mere suggestion by the way, and was not intended to lay down any general rule. Nevertheless, the analogy is an apposite one,-and we think that excuse for any longer delay than that should be made manifest by the special circumstances of the case.

In the present case there was a delay of nearly four years. The application for a reissue, though made in the name of the patentee and signed by him, was not made for his benefit, but -for the benefit and apparently at the instance of his assignee, the present appellant. The specification is very plain and free from complexity, and as we have already stated, the claims in the original patent were clear and explicit. There was no ambiguity, and nothing to prevent the patentee from seeing at once, on inspecting his patent, whether his whole invention was claimed or not. "We can see no possible excuse, and none has been attempted to be shown, for allowing the patent to stand the length of time it did without any attempt to havé it amended. The reissue was-made against law apparent on its face, and nothing is shown in the record to remove this illegality. The case is clearly within the principle laid down in Miller v. The Brass Company, and the patent must be regarded as void so far as the new and expanded claims are concerned. As this leaves only the fourth claim to be considered, and as it is clear from the evidence in the case that the appellants did not infringe that claim, the decree of' the Circuit Court must be

Affirmed.