Find court opinions that match your case.

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Hailes v. Van Wormer

Hailes v. Van Wormer. . 1. -Á new combination, if it,produees new and useful results, is patentable, though all the constituents of the-combination were well lcnpwn and in common fuse before the combination was made. But the results must ,;

87 U.S. 353 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Washing-Machine Co. v. Tool Co.

Washing-Machine Company v. Tool Company. 1. The reissued letters-patent (No. 2829) for a new and improved clothes-wringer, granted to Sylvanus Walker, assignee, on the 81st day of December, 18ü7, construed to-be for a U-sbaped yoke or frame

87 U.S. 342 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Humaston v. Telegraph Co.

Humaston v. Telegraph Company. 1. "Where a person, on a given contract, covenants to pay a sum whose amount is to be eontingenton certain events and is to be ascertained by-arbitrators, such person, if he prevent any arbitration, may be sue

87 U.S. 20 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Warren v. Van Brunt

Warren v. Van Brunt. 1. Where two persons, before a public survey of it, made a settlement in Minnesota on the same forty acres of land (a quarter of a quarter-section and the smallest legal subdivision allowed by statute), which settlement

86 U.S. 646 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Mackay v. Easton

Mackay v. Easton. 1. On the 16lh of November, 1815, one J Smith was the owner of two arpents of land, in the village of Little Prairie, in the county of New Madrid, in the State of Missouri, which had been confirmed to him by the commission

86 U.S. 619 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1873

Packet Co. v. Sickles

Packet Company v. Sickles. 1. Whilst the right to plead the statute of limitations, is no more within the discretion of the court than other pleas, when the refusal of the eourt to permit that plea to be filed is based on the allegation tha

86 U.S. 611 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

United States v. Jonas

United States v. Jonas. ]. The act of March 3d, 1863, entitled “ An act to prevent and punish frauds upon the revenue, to provide for the more certain and speedy collection of claims in favor of the United States, and for other purposes;” a

86 U.S. 598 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1873

United States v. Innerarity

United States v. Innerarity. Under the act of June 22d, 1860, “ for the final adjustment of private land claims in the States of Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri,” &c. (a temporary act, which having expired was temporarily revived by an act

86 U.S. 595 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Klein v. Russell

Klein v. Russell. 1. Where on a trial for infringement of a reissue of letters-patent — the defence being a want of novelty — a defendant requests the court below to direct the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant (no objection bein

86 U.S. 433 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1873

Mitchell v. Tilghman

Mitchell v. Tilghman. What R. A. Tilghman, of Philadelphia, claimed as his invention under the letters-patent granted to him of January 9th, 1854, was the process of manufacturing fat-acids and glycerin from fatty or oily substances by the

86 U.S. 287 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Eldred v. Sexton

Eldred v. Sexton. The fundamental principle established by the act of Congress of April 24th, 1820, and since governing the matter of sales of the public lands, that private entries are not permitted until after the lands have been exposed

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

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Carpenter v. Rannels

Carpenter v. Rannels. A. having, prior to July, 1801, an inchoate title to lands in the then French territory of what is now Missouri, agreed in July of that year to sell it, on certain conditions of improvement, required by the government,

86 U.S. 138 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

McCarthy v. Mann

McCarthy v. Mann. A., on the 13th of February, 1850, made an entry and location, which proved to be wholly void, of a land warrant on public land ; and then conveyed to B. by deed with full covenants. B. conveyed to O. hy a similar sort of

86 U.S. 20 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Hicks v. Kelsey

Hicks v. Kelsey. The mere change in an instrument or machine of one material into anothe—as of wood, or of wood strengthened with iron, into iron alone^is net “invention” in the sense of the Patent Acts, and therefore is not the subject of

85 U.S. 670 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Eunson v. Dodge

Eunson v. Dodge. Where a person during the original term of a patent bought from one who had no right to sell it, a machine which was an infringement of the patent, and afterwards himself bought the patent for the county where he was using

85 U.S. 414 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Lamb v. Davenport

Lamb v. Davenport. 1. Unless forbidden by some positive law, contracts made by actual settlers on the public lands concerning tbeir possessory rights, and concerning the title to be acquired in future from the United States, are valid as be

85 U.S. 307 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Coffin v. Ogden

Coffin v. Ogden. 1. When, in a patent case, a person claims as an original inventor and the defence is a prior invention by. the defendant, if the defendant prove that the instrument which ho alleges was invented by him was complete and cap

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

Reversed Intellectual Property 1873

Best v. Polk

Best v. Polk. 1. The treaty of May 24th, 1834, with, the Chickasaw Indians (7 Stat. at Large, 450) conferred title to the reservations contemplated by it, which was complete when the locations were made to identify them. 2. A patent (as oft

85 U.S. 112 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Masterson v. Howard

Masterson, Assignee, v. Howard. 1. Where a decree is entered upon an order taking a bill in equity as confessed by defendants for want of an answer, the only question for the consideration of this court on appeal is whether the allegations

85 U.S. 99 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Railroad Co. v. Peniston

Railroad Company v. Peniston. 1. The exemption of agencies of the Federal government from taxation by the States is-dependent, not up on the nature of the agents, nor upon the mode of their constitution, nor upon the fact that .they are age

85 U.S. 5 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1873

Rea v. Missouri

Rea v. Missouri. 1. Although a greater latitude is allowable in the cross-examination of a party who places himself on the stand, than in that of other witnesses, still, where the cross-examination is directed to matters not inquired about

84 U.S. 532 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1873

Carlton v. Bokee

Carlton v. Bokee. 1. Where a. claim in a patent uses general terms of reference to the specification, such as “substantially in the manner and for the purpose herein' set forth,” although the patentee will not be held to the precise combina

84 U.S. 463 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Intellectual Property 1873

Philp v. Nock

Philp et al. v. Nock. In a suit by a 'patentee, for damages against an infringer, the plaintiff can recover enly for actual damages, and be must show the damages by evidence. They cannot be loft to conjecture by the jury. 'Whero he has soug

84 U.S. 460 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1873

Adams v. Burke

Adams v. Burke. 1. "Where a patentee has assigned his right to manufacture, sell, and use within a limited district an instrument, machine, or other manufactured product, a purchaser of such instrument or machine, when rightfully-bought wit

84 U.S. 453 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion