Find court opinions that match your case.

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Hendrie v. Sayles

Hendrie v. Sayles. Where, before the issue of letters-patent therefor, a party assigns his invention, and letters are lawfully issued to the assignee in his own name, the latter is entitled, where the instrument of assignment does not show

98 U.S. 546 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Railroad Co. v. Commissioners

Railroad Company v. Commissioners. 1. In Nebraska, no demand for taxes is required, but it is the duty of every person subject to taxation to attend at the office of the county treasurer and make payment. 2. Certain lands in that State, the

98 U.S. 541 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

States v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad

United States v. Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company. 1. The grant of lands made to the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, by the act of July 2,1864 (13 Stat. 356), embraced ten odd-numbered sections per mile, to be

98 U.S. 334 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Snyder v. Sickles

Snyder v. Sickles. A Spanish grant of land situate in the district of St. Louis, made May 12, 1785, which this court, in Stanford y. Taylor (18 How. 409), decided did not, without a survey, attach to any specific tract, was in 1811 confirme

98 U.S. 203 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1878

Powder Co. v. Powder Works

Powder Company v. Powder Works. 1. Reissued letters-patent must be for the same invention as that which formed the subject of the original letters; or for a part thereof when divisional reissues are granted. They must not contain any thing

98 U.S. 126 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Wirth v. Branson

Wirth v. Branson. 1. Where, in ejectment, it appeared that a location of a military bounty land-warrant, duly made by A. on the demanded premises, the same being a part of the surveyed public land of the United States, had not been vacated

98 U.S. 118 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Garratt v. Seibert

Garratt v. Seibert. Reissued letters-patent No. 5328, granted to William T. Garratt March 18, 1873, for a new and useful improvement in lubricators, infringe letters-patent No. 111,881, granted to Nicholas Seibert Feb. 14,1871, for a new an

98 U.S. 75 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

States v. Throckmorton

United States v. Throckmorton. 1. It is essential to a bill in chancery on behalf of the United States to set aside a patent for lands, or the final confirmation of a Mexican grant, that it shall appear in some tvay, without regard to the s

98 U.S. 61 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Bates v. Coe

Bates v. Coe. 1. Persons sued as infringers may, if they eomply with the statutory condition as to notice, give the special defences mentioned in the Patent Act in evidence, under the general issue. 2. Such notices, in a suit in equity, may

98 U.S. 31 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Palmer v. Low

Palmer v. Low. 1. Under Dormer v. Palmer (81 Cal. 600), which establishes a rule of property-in California, the courts of the United States accept as competent primary evidence of alcalde grants of the pueblo land of San Francisco, the reco

98 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1878

Barney v. Dolph

Barney v. Dolph. After the passage of the act of July 17,1854 (10 Stat. 306), amendatory of the act of Sept. 27, 1850 (9 id. 496), commonly known as the Donation Act, a husband and wife, who, by reason of their residence and cultivation, we

97 U.S. 652 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1878

Railway Co. v. Sayles

Railway Company v. Sayles. 1. A party who invents a new machine never used before, and procures letters-patent therefor, acquires a monopoly as against all merely formal variations thereof; but -if the advance towards the thing desired is g

97 U.S. 554 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Patterson v. Kentucky

Patterson v. Kentucky. 1. Where, by the application of the invention or- discovery for which letters-patent have been granted by the United States, tangible property comes into existence, its use is, to the same extent as that of any other

97 U.S. 501 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1878

Settlemier v. Sullivan

Settlemier v. Sullivan. In ejectment for lands in Oregon, the defendant claimed title under a sheriff’s deed, pursuant to a sale of them under execution sued out upon a judgment by default rendered in 1861 against A. in the State court. A c

97 U.S. 444 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Marsh v. Seymour

Marsh v. Seymour. Same v. Same. 1. The court concurs with the court below that reissued letters-patent No. 72, dated May 7,1861, and No. 1683, dated May 31,1861, for new and useful improvements in reaping-machines, and reissued letters No.

97 U.S. 348 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Hyndman v. Roots

Hyndman v. Roots. This case involves merely questions of fact; and the court finds that letters-patent No. 106,165, granted Aug. 9, 1870, to William G. Hyndman, for an “improvement in rotary blowers,” infringe the first, second, third, and

97 U.S. 224 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Ashcroft v. Railroad Co.

Ashcroft v. Railroad Company. 1. Reissued letters-patent No. 3727, granted by the United States, Nov. 9,1869, to Edward H. Ashcroft, assignee of William Naylor, for an improvement in steam safety-valves, being a reissue of original letters

97 U.S. 189 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.

Elizabeth v. Pavement Company. 1. A foreign patent or publication describing an invention, unless published anterior to the making of the invention or discovery secured by letters-patent issued by the United States, is no defence to a suit

97 U.S. 126 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

Machine Co. v. Murphy

Machine Company v. Murphy. 1. The substantial equivalent of a thing is, in the sense of the patent law, the same as the thing itself. Two devices which perform the same function in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially th

97 U.S. 120 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Powder Co. v. Burkhardt

Powder Company v. Burkhardt. An incorporated company entered into a contract with A., the owner of letters-patent for an explosive compound called “ dualin,” whereby he undertook to manufacture it, as required by the company from time to ti

97 U.S. 110 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Rubber-Coated Harness-Trimming Co. v. Welling

Rubber-Coated Harness-Trimming Company v. Welling. Letters-patent No. 37,941, granted March 17,1863, to William M. Welling, for an improvement in rings for martingales, are void for want of novelty, being merely for a product consisting of

97 U.S. 7 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Glue Co. v. Upton

Glue Company v. Upton. 1 The mere change in form of a soluble article of commerce, by reducing it to small particles so that its solution is accelerated and it is rendered more ready for immediate use, convenient for handling, and, by its i

97 U.S. 3 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

Schumacher v. Cornell

Schumacher v. Cornell. 1. Letters-patent No. 133,636, granted Dec. 3,1872, to William Johnson, for an improvement in wrenches, do not infringe reissued letters-patent No. 5026, granted Aug. 6,1872, to John Lacey and George B. Cornell, for a

96 U.S. 549 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

Moore v. Robbins

Moore v. Robbins. 1.- A patent for public land, when issued by the Land Department, aeting within the scope of its authority, and delivered to and accepted by the grantee, passes the legal title to the land. All control of the Executive Dep

96 U.S. 530 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion