1885 United States Supreme Court case
Rowell v. Lindsay |
---|
|
Argued December 15–16, 1884 Decided January 25, 1885 |
---|
Full case name | Rowell v. Lindsay |
---|
Citations | 113 U.S. 97 (more) 5 S. Ct. 507; 28 L. Ed. 906 |
---|
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- Morrison Waite
- Associate Justices
- Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan William B. Woods · Stanley Matthews Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford |
Case opinion |
---|
Majority | Woods, joined by unanimous |
---|
Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U.S. 97 (1885), was a bill brought by the appellants, John S. Rowell and Ira Rowell, the plaintiffs in the circuit court. The bill was in equity against Edmund J. Lindsay and William Lindsay, the appellees, to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 2,909, dated March 31, 1868, granted to the plaintiffs for 'a new and improved cultivator.[1]
The answer of the defendants, among other defenses, denied infringement of the letters patent. The plaintiffs contended that infringement of their letters patent was made out by the evidence, which tended to show that the defendants constructed and sold seeding-machines made according to the specification of letters patent granted to John H. Thomas and Joseph W. Thomas, dated June 30, 1874, for 'an improvement in seeding-machines.' This invention related to the drag-bars and shovel standards of broad cast seeders, and consisted mainly in the manner of attaching the standards to the drag-bar.
Upon final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs the circuit court dismissed the bill, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The evidence showed that the shanks or standards of plows, cultivators, and seeding machines have been used in a great variety of forms. In some, the upper end of the brace entered the beam in the rear, and in others, in front of the shank. In some, the upper end of the shank and the brace were so formed and united as to present an elliptical figure. Many, perhaps the majority, were without braces. In some, the upper end of the shank was made with a head in the form of an elliptical or circular plate, called an enlarged head. This performed the function of a brace.
The patent of the plaintiffs stood on narrow ground, and to sustain it, it must be construed as to confine it substantially to the form described in the specification. The patent of the plaintiffs was for a combination only. None of the separate elements which the combination was composed are claimed as the invention of the patentee; therefore none of them, standing alone, are included in the monopoly of the patent. As was said by Mr. Justice BRADLEY in the case of The Corn-Planter Patent, 23 Wall. 224: 'When a patentee, after describing a machine, claims as his invention a certain combination of elements, or a certain device, or part of the machine, this is an implied declaration-as conclusive, so far as that patent is concerned, as if it were expressed-that the specific combination or thing claimed is the only part which the patentee regards as new. True, he or some other person may have a distinct patent for portions not covered by this, but that will speak for itself. So far as the patent in question is concerned, the remaining parts are old, or common and public.' See, also, Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 573; Water-meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U.S. 332-337; Miller v. Brass Co. 104 U.S. 350. These authorities dispose of the contention of the plaintiffs' counsel that their patent covers one of the separate elements which enters into the combination, namely, a slotted wooden beam, because, as they contend, that element is new, and is the original invention of the patentees.
The patent was for a combination so there could be no infringement unless the combination is infringed. It was plain, upon an inspection of the drawings, that the defendants do not use a brace-bar similar in shape or position to that described in the plaintiffs' patent. The specification and drawings of the plaintiffs' patent, and the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses, show that one purpose of the brace-bar, used in the plaintiffs' combination, was to strengthen and support the shank between the tooth and the beam. The use of the brace-bar enabled the plaintiffs to make the shank with less material, and, at the same time, to increase its strength. The court found that the curved upper part of the shank used by defendants does not perform one of the material functions of the brace-bar of the plaintiffs' combination. It cannot, therefore, be the equivalent of the latter. For where one patented combinais asserted to be an infringement of another, a device in one, to be the equivalent of a device in the other, must perform the same functions.
therefore, there was one element of the plaintiffs' patented combination which the defendants do not use, and for which they do not employ an equivalent, it follows that they do not infringe the plaintiffs' patent. The decree of the circuit court, which dismissed the plaintiffs' bill, was therefore affirmed; and it was so ordered.
See also
References
- ^ Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U.S. 97 (1885).
External links
- Text of Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U.S. 97 (1885) is available from: CourtListener Justia Library of Congress
Enumeration Clause of Section II |
---|
|
|
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III |
---|
|
|
Elections Clause of Section IV |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Dormant Commerce Clause | - Brown v. Maryland (1827)
- Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
- Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
- George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
- Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
- Edwards v. California (1941)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
- National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
- Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
- White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
- Maine v. Taylor (1986)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
- Granholm v. Heald (2005)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
- Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
- National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)
|
---|
Others | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1790 | |
---|
Patent Act of 1793 | |
---|
Patent infringement case law | |
---|
Patentability case law | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1831 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1870 | |
---|
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 | |
---|
International Copyright Act of 1891 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1909 | |
---|
Patent misuse case law | |
---|
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 | |
---|
Lanham Act | - Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
- Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1976 | - Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
- Stewart v. Abend (1990)
- Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
- Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
- Golan v. Holder (2012)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
- Allen v. Cooper (2020)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Other copyright cases | |
---|
Other patent cases | - Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
- United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
- United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
- Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
- Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
- Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
- United States v. Adams (1966)
- Brenner v. Manson (1966)
- Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
- Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
- United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
- Dann v. Johnston (1976)
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
- Parker v. Flook (1978)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
- Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
- Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
- LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
- Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
- Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
- Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
- Gunn v. Minton (2013)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
- FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
- Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
|
---|
Other trademark cases | |
---|
|
|
|
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
|
|
Compact Clause of Section X |
---|
|
|