Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co.
Citations
- 140 U.S. 481
- 11 S. Ct. 846
- 35 L. Ed. 521
- 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2480
Syllabus
<p>The invention for winding thread upon spools, patented in Great Britain to William Weild by letters patent granted January 22, 1858, the specification being filed July 22, 1858, was published by the filing of the specification before Hezekiah Conant discovered and invented the improvement in machines for winding thread on spools, secured to him by letters patent of the United States, of December 13, 1859, (but antedated June ' 22, 1859,) and numbered 26,415; and, consequently, the use of Weild’s invention in the United States does not subject the person using it to-liability to pay damages to the' owners of Conant’s patent for such use, or to being restrained in equity from further using it.</p> <p>A copy of a patent was attached to a deposition as an exhibit, and the deposition was read at the trial and was returned in, the transcript as-part of the record by the clerk of the Circuit Court, óertified under the-seal of the court: Held that, although the deposition contained no- ■ express minute that’ the patent was offered in evidence, it must be-received as so offered.</p> <p>The evidence of a patentee offered by the owner of the patent in a suit for an infringement of it, as to the actual day when his invention was made, when that becomes material, must be taken most strongly against those-who offer it.</p> <p>When the defendant in a suit for infringement of a patent shows that the-machine which he is using, and which is claimed to be an infringement, was patented and in use before the date of the plaintiff’s patent, the-burden of proof is, on the latter to show that his invention preceded, that of the machine which the defendant is using.</p>
Judges: Bradley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
67 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court· 1998-12-14· cited 353×
- United States v. Dubilier Condenser CorpSupreme Court· 1933-04-10· cited 236×
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court· 1928-04-09· cited 231×
- Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp.First Circuit· 1909-01-05· cited 71×
- Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1913-08-22· cited 49×
- Esme E. Rosaire v. Baroid Sales Division, National Lead CompanyFifth Circuit· 1955-02-08· cited 38×
- Stearns v. Tinker & RasorNinth Circuit· 1955-03-24· cited 36×
- Brooks v. SacksFirst Circuit· 1897-06-10· cited 30×
- Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Second Circuit· 1922-03-13· cited 28×
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co.First Circuit· 1904-09-09· cited 25×
- Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1917-05-08· cited 25×
- Torrey v. HancockEighth Circuit· 1910-11-26· cited 22×
- Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co.First Circuit· 1932-01-19· cited 21×
- Eck v. KutzU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania· 1904-09-23· cited 18×
- Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. v. Maurice A. Garbell, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1953-07-13· cited 17×
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Catskill Illuminating & Power Co.Second Circuit· 1903-02-25· cited 17×
- Brown v. Ford Motor Co.E.D. Michigan· 1944-11-15· cited 15×
- Corrington v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.Second Circuit· 1910-04-06· cited 13×
- Vandenburgh v. Truscon Steel Co.Sixth Circuit· 1922-01-09· cited 13×
- Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. v. WA SHEAFFER PEN CO., DIV. OF TEX.D. Delaware· 1967-04-20· cited 11×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.