Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

McGarrahan v. Mining Co.

McGarrahan v. Mining Company. 1. The statutory provisions prescribing the manner in which a patent of the United States for land shall be executed are mandatory. No equivalent for any of the required formalities is allowed, but each of the

96 U.S. 316 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

McLean v. Fleming

McLean v. Fleming. 1. "Where a manufacturer has habitually stamped his goods with a particular mark or brand, a court of equity will restrain another party from adopting it for the same kind of goods. 2. Positive proof of fraudulent intent

96 U.S. 245 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1877

Werner v. King

Werner v. King. 1. Form,' -when of the essence.of an invention, is necessarily material; and, if it be inseparable from the successful operation of the machine, the attainment of the same object by a machine different in form is not an infr

96 U.S. 218 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Arthur v. Unkart

Arthur v. Unkart. 1. In 1873, certain gloves, commerce illy known as “ silk plaited gloves,” or “ patent gloves,” made on frames and manufactured in part óf silk and in part -of cotton, cotton being the component part of chief value, were i

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Pennoyer v. Neff

Pennoyer v. Neff. • 1. A statute of Oregon, after providing for service of summons upon parties or their representatives, personally or at their residence, declares that when ■ service cannot be thus made, and the defendant, after due dilig

95 U.S. 714 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1877

Eddy v. Dennis

Eddy v. Dennis. Dennis v. Eddy. 1. In reissued letters-patent No. 1515, granted to Paul Dennis Aug. 4, 1863, for a new and useful improvement in cultivators, the second claim in the specification is for a combination of the beam and the mou

95 U.S. 560 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1877

Morrow v. Whitney

Morrow v. Whitney. 1. When an act of Congress, confirming a claim to land, contains a proviso that the confirmation shall not include any lands occupied by the United States for military purposes, the fact of such occupancy can be establish

95 U.S. 551 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Beecher v. Wetherby

Beecher v. Wetherby. 3. It was an unalterable condition of the admission of Wisconsin into the Union, that, of tlie public lands in the State, section 16 in every township, which, had not been sold or otherwise disposed of, should be grante

95 U.S. 517 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Cochrane v. Deener

Cochrane v. Deener. The court declines to vacate its decree rendered at the last term in Cochrane v. Deener, 94 IT. S. 780, but holds that third parties, whose interests are opposed to the Cochrane patents which were in controversy in that

95 U.S. 355 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phœnix Iron Co.

Keystone Bridge Company v. Phœnix Iron Company. 1. The manufacture of round or cylindrical bars flattened and drilled at the eye, for use in the lower chords of iron truss bridges, is not an infringeihent of . letters-patent for an improvem

95 U.S. 274 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1877

Colorado Co. v. Commissioners

Colorado Company v. Commissioners. Where an act of Congress confirms a Mexican grant of five hundred thousand acres.to the extent of eleven square leagues, to be selected within the limits of .the claim, according to the lines of the public

95 U.S. 259 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1877

Roemer v. Simon

Roemer v. Simon. 1. Letters-patent No. 56,801, issued July 31, 1866, to William Roemer, for an improvement in travelling-bags, cannot be sustained, as the thing patented was, before his alleged invention, known and extensively used by other

95 U.S. 214 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1877

Movius v. Arthur

Movius v. Arthur. 1. The act of Congress, approved June 6, 1872 (17 Stat. 230), does not repeal the provisions in the acts of March 2, 1861 (12 id. 189), Aug. 5, 1861 (id. 293), and July 14,1862 (id. 555), imposing duties on japanned, paten

95 U.S. 144 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1876

Cochrane v. Deener

Cochrane v. Deener. 1. The powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in patent cases, are the same, as well in equity as at law, as those of the circuit courts of the United States; and whether a case, involv

94 U.S. 780 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Blake v. Robertson

Blake v. Robertson. Robertson v. Blake. 1. Reissued letters-patent No. 2,145, granted to Eli W. Blake, Jan. 9,1866, for an improvement in machines for crushing stones, and extended June 15,.18†-2, were not anticipated by those granted Sept.

94 U.S. 728 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1876

Illinois Central Railroad v. Turrill

CAWOOD PATENT. Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Turrill; Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad Company v. Same; Chicago and Alton Railroad Company v. Same; Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. Same; Pittsburgh,

94 U.S. 695 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Russell v. Place

Russell v. Place. 1. A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a question directly in volved in one suit, is conclusive as to that question in another suit between the same parties; but to-this operation of the judgment it must

94 U.S. 606 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Merrill v. Yeomans

Merrill v. Yeomans. Letters-patent No. 90,284, issued to Joshua Merrill May IS, 1869, for improved manufacture of deodorized heavy hydrocarbon oils, construed and held to be good for the superheating coil, with its steam-pipe, &c., referred

94 U.S. 568 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Stark v. Starr

Stark v. Starr. 1. The complainant, Starr, and his brother, being in possession of certain lots in the city of Portland, Oregon, filed a bill in equity in the State court to quiet their title and compel the defendant, who claimed an adverse

94 U.S. 477 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1876

Fuller v. Yentzer

Fuller v. Yentzer. Same v. Goodrich. 1. Reissued letters-patent No. 3,218, granted Dec. 1, 1868, to Henry W. Fuller, assignee, by mesne assignments, of Israel M. Rose, for an improvement in a tuck-creasing attachment in sewing-machines, wer

94 U.S. 299 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Fuller v. Yentzer

Fuller v. Yentzer. 1. The alleged new and useful improvement in mechanism for marking cloth in sewing-machines, for which letters-patent No. 28,633, bearing date June 6, 1860, were issued to Henry W. Euller and Anthony W. Goodell, consists

94 U.S. 288 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Cammeyer v. Newton

Cammeyer v. Newton. 1. This court finds that letters-patent "No. 80,492, granted to William H. Cammeyer, bearing date July 28, 1868, for an improved portable and adjustable still-water dam, were not infringéd by the defendant. 2. The claims

94 U.S. 225 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1876

Dunbar v. Myers

Dunbar v. Myers. 1, In letters-patent of the United States, No. 10,065, hearing date May 23,1854; issued to John Myers and Robert G. Eunson, granting to them, for the term of fourteen years from that date, the exclusive right and liberty of

94 U.S. 187 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1876

Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright

Consolidated Fruit-Jar Company v. Wright. Letters-patent No. 102,913, issued to John L. Mason, May 10, 1870, for an “ Improvement in fruit-jars,” are void: first, because there was a purchase, sale, and prior use of the invention more than

94 U.S. 92 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion