Anderson v. Collins
Citations
- 122 F. 451
- 58 C.C.A. 669
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4789
Syllabus
<p>1. Patents—Infringement of Combination—Use of Equivalent Method or Material to Make Same Element will not Avoid.</p> <p>The use of a different, but mechanically equivalent, method or material to construct some of the elements of a patented combination will not avoid infringement where the principle or mode of operation is adopted, and the elements, when constructed, perform the same functions by the same means as, or by mechanically equivalent means to, those described in the patent.</p> <p>2. Same—Infringement—Presumption from Subsequent Patent or Infringing Device Overcome by Finding of Trial Court.</p> <p>The legal presumption of no infringement which arises from a subsequent patent upon a device that is alleged to infringe a prior patent is overcome by the finding of infringement by the trial court, which must be presumed to be correct, unless an obvious error of law or a serious mistake of fact is disclosed.</p> <p>3. Same—Combination of Patent 621,219 Infringes Patent 595,696.</p> <p>The combination described in letters patent No. 621,219, issued March 14, 1899, to George A. Burwell, infringes claims 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of letters patent No. 595,696, issued December 21, 1897, to George J. S. Collins.</p> <p>4. Same—Novelty—Issue of Defensive Patent Prior to Discovert or Invention by Patentee of Patent in Suit.</p> <p>It is indispensable to the maintenance of the statutory defense (Act July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 208, c. 230, § 61 [3 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3394, § 4920]) that the device had been patented before the patentee under the patent in suit invented it that the defensive patent should have been issued before the patentee under the patent in suit made his invention. A prior application for the patent, or a prior invention by the patentee under the defensive patent, will not sustain this defense.</p> <p>5. Same—Applications of Same Inventor Pending at Same Time not Anticipatory.</p> <p>Where each of several applications which subsequently ripen into patent
Judges: Sanborn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Freeman v. AltvaterEighth Circuit· 1933-07-24· cited 31×
- Electric Protection Co. v. American Bank Protection Co.Eighth Circuit· 1910-11-18· cited 30×
- McDONOUGH v. JOHNSON-WENTWORTH CO.Eighth Circuit· 1928-12-14· cited 27×
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.Eighth Circuit· 1934-06-01· cited 26×
- Independent Oil Well Cementing Co. v. HalliburtonTenth Circuit· 1932-01-11· cited 23×
- St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. American Street Flushing Mach. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-10-22· cited 19×
- Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co.Sixth Circuit· 1917-06-05· cited 19×
- Johnson v. Foos Mfg. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1905-11-29· cited 17×
- Zip Mfg. Co. v. PuschEighth Circuit· 1924-11-05· cited 11×
- Roth v. HarrisSecond Circuit· 1909-02-16· cited 8×
- Benthall Mach. Co. v. National Mach. Corp.E.D. Virginia· 1915-04-02· cited 8×
- Perfection Disappearing Bed Co. v. Murphy Wall Bed Co.Ninth Circuit· 1920-07-06· cited 8×
- Wm. F. Goessling Box Co. v. GumbEighth Circuit· 1917-02-28· cited 7×
- Kawneer Mfg. Co. v. Toledo Plate & Window Glass Co.E.D. Michigan· 1915-07-23· cited 6×
- American Bank Protection Co. v. City Nat. Bank of Johnson CityU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee· 1909-10-07· cited 6×
- Davis Mfg. Co. v. Levin Bros.Eighth Circuit· 1925-11-04· cited 5×
- Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Durham Duplex Razor Co.D. New Jersey· 1912-06-13· cited 5×
- American Bank Protection Co. v. Electric Protection Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota· 1910-01-03· cited 4×
- Turner Brass Works v. Appliance Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois· 1909-04-05· cited 3×
- Johns-Manville Co. v. R. V. Aycock Co.W.D. Missouri· 1927-03-07· cited 1×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Railway Co. v. SaylesSupreme Court· 1878-11-18· cited 266×
- National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.Eighth Circuit· 1901-02-28· cited 192×
- McCormick v. TalcottSupreme Court· 1858-04-22· cited 112×
- Gould v. ReesSupreme Court· 1872-11-25· cited 81×
- Ide v. Trorlicht, Duncker & Renard Carpet Co.Eighth Circuit· 1902-04-21· cited 58×
- Stirrat v. Excelsior Manuf'g Co.Eighth Circuit· 1894-05-07· cited 33×
- Brammer v. SchroederEighth Circuit· 1901-02-25· cited 27×
- Griswold v. HarkerEighth Circuit· 1894-06-25· cited 21×
- Graham v. McCormickN.D. Illinois· 1880-03-13· cited 19×
- New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut· 1894-11-16· cited 17×
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Dayton Fan & Motor Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio· 1901-02-06· cited 11×
- Graham v. Geneva Lake Crawford Manuf'g Co.E.D. Wisconsin· 1880-10-11· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.