Case v. Brown
Syllabus
Case v. Brown. A claim for a combination of several devices, so combined together as to produce a particular 'result, is not good as a claim for “ any mode of combining those devices which would produce that result,” and can only he sustained as a valid claim for the peculiar combination of devices invented and described. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wallace, 553, affirmed and applied. Among the inventions of our country that have assumed great value — especially in the regions of the West, where Indian corn is largely produced — are those known as Corn-PtANTEES. The machine consists of a mechanism resembling somewhat, in external appearance, and in-section view, a high plough on wheels. It is drawn by a horse, while a man walks behind and manages it. The object is to plant corn at spots, which spots shall be both equidistant and in rows. The corn to be planted is placed in a hopper or sort of box, which is fixed in the body of the machine; and, at proper intervals, as the machine is drawn by the horse, the grains are permitted to enter and fall through a valve, at the base of a short vertical spout, to the ground, another valve being at the top of the spout. If the grains were permitted to fall through the full length of the spout'as the machine passed on, by a valve at the top only óf the spout, they would not reach the ground exactly under the place at which the valve was opened ; inasmuch as in the interval of time that the grain was descending through the spout, the machine would h
Full Opinion (1,776 characters)
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. The error alleged is the refus'd of the court to give certain instructions, the substance of which, when extricated from the máss of verbiage with which it is encumbered, seems to be, “that the plaintiff had a right to claim any mode of combining” the various mechanical devices, in the improved machine, which would produce the same effect or result, as mere equivalents for those described in his patent. The court refused to give this instruction to the jury-;, but, on the contrary, instructed them in the language quoted in the reporter’s statement. The instruction there quoted is a correct exposition of the law, and if it produced a verdict in favor of defendant, the plaintiff had no right to complain. The plaintiff’s original patent limited his claim, very properly, to the particular devices and combination of parts which constituted his improved machine. But as this claim was not broad enough to cover the improvement described in defendant’s patent, the plaintiff surrendered his, and had it reissued with a more expanded claim. It is for the infringement. of this reissued patent that the action is brought. TVc have had occasion to remark, in a late case, on this new art of expanding patents for machines into patents for “ a mode of operation,” a function, a principle, an effect or result, so that by an equivocal use of the term “ equivalent,” a patentee of an improved machine may suppress all further improvements. It is not necessary again to expose the fallacy of the arguments by which these attempts are sought to be supported, though we cannot hinder their repetition. Let the judgment be aeeirmed. Supra, p. 825. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wallace, 586; see, also, McCormac v. Talcott, 20 Howard, 405.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.