Brill v. Washington Railway & Electric Co.
Citations
- 215 U.S. 527
- 30 S. Ct. 177
- 54 L. Ed. 311
- 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1858
Syllabus
<p>Where a decree to which he is privy has established the'.right of a manufacturer to sell an article, there is force in the argument that such right should be recognized in another suit against W.customer and defended by him. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U. S. 285.</p> <p>Devices used in connection with steam' railway cari are not patentable as new inventions when applied to Street railway cars, even though a long time may have elapsed between their first use and their application to street cars.</p> <p>Where the claim is very narrow, as in this case, there is little room for the doctrine of equivalents.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- Because of the close prior art, there “would be little room for the doctrine of equivalents. The defendant’s device ... does not infringe the very narrow claim which is the most that in any view could be allowed”
- Because of the close prior art, there \would be little room for the doctrine of equivalents. The defendant's device ... does not infringe the very narrow claim which is the most that in any view could be allowed\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes, McKenna
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.