Worden v. Searls

121 U.S. 14, 7 S. Ct. 814, 30 L. Ed. 853, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2020
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 28, 1887
Docket118
StatusPublished
Cited by136 cases

This text of 121 U.S. 14 (Worden v. Searls) 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
Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14, 7 S. Ct. 814, 30 L. Ed. 853, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2020 (1887).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchfobd

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is. a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern' District of Michigan, by Anson,, Searls - against Alva Wórden and John S. Worden, 'for the .alleged infringement of reissued letters-patent, No. 5400, granted to .Erastus W. Scott and Anson Searls, May 6, 1873, for an “ improvement in whip-sockets,” on an application for reissue filed January 16, 1873, the original letters-patent, No. 70,627, having been granted to E. W. Scott, November 5, 1867, ón an application filed August 23, 1867. One- of the defences set up in the answer is, that the reissued letters-patent are not for -the same invention as that described and claimed in the original letters-patent, and contain new matter not contained or claimed in the original.

■ The specification and claim and drawings- of the original patent are as follows:

“Be it known that I, E. W. Scott, of Wauregan, in the county of Windham and State of Connecticut, have invented a new and useful improvement in whip-sockets; • and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, and to the letters of'reference marked thereon.'
*16

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

Related

United States v. Doreen Hendrickson
822 F.3d 812 (Sixth Circuit, 2016)
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
733 F.3d 1369 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
In Re Moncier
550 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Tennessee, 2008)
Williams v. Levi (In Re Williams)
323 B.R. 691 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Matter of Evans
411 A.2d 984 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1980)
Itt Community Development Corporation v. John Barton
569 F.2d 1351 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America
545 F.2d 1336 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Bray v. United States
423 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Maness v. Meyers
419 U.S. 449 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Hyde Construction Co., Inc. v. Koehring Company
387 F. Supp. 702 (S.D. Mississippi, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 U.S. 14, 7 S. Ct. 814, 30 L. Ed. 853, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worden-v-searls-scotus-1887.