Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.
Citations
- 150 U.S. 38
- 14 S. Ct. 28
- 37 L. Ed. 989
- 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2346
Syllabus
<p>The first claim under the reissued letters patent No. 10,361, issued to Henry L. Spiegel, July 31, 1883, for improvements in cabinet locks, is void because it broadens and expands the claims in the original patent, and it does not appear that there was any accident, inadvertence, or mistake in the specification and claim of the original, or that it was void or inoperative for any reason which would entitle the patentee to have a reissue.</p> <p>When an applicant for letters patent makes a broad claim which is rejected, and he acquiesces in the decision and substitutes a narrower claim therefor, he cannot insist upon a construction of the narrowed claim which would cover what was so rejected.</p> <p>To warrant new and broader claims in a reissue, they must not only be suggested or indicated in the original specification., drawings, or models, but it must appear that they constitute part of the invention intended to be covered by the original patent.</p> <p>In applications for reissue the patentee cannot incorporate claims covering what had been rejected on the original application.</p> <p>Letters patent No. 316,411, granted April 21, 1885, to Henry L. Spiegel for improvements in cabinet locks are void for want of pateutable invention.</p>
Judges: Jackson, Brown
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
56 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court· 1898-05-09· cited 291×
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court· 1935-03-04· cited 256×
- U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court· 1942-04-27· cited 111×
- Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co.Supreme Court· 1907-02-25· cited 83×
- Reece Button-Hole Ma. Co. v. Globe Button-Hole Ma. Co.First Circuit· 1894-04-20· cited 80×
- Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering Corp.Supreme Court· 1935-01-07· cited 67×
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co.Supreme Court· 1938-05-02· cited 57×
- Florence-Mayo Nuway Co. v. HardyFourth Circuit· 1948-05-04· cited 46×
- Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. General Electric Co.Second Circuit· 1920-05-26· cited 37×
- Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.Federal Circuit· 2014-11-17· cited 20×
- St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. American Street Flushing Mach. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-10-22· cited 19×
- Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co. v. McDuffeeThird Circuit· 1910-02-21· cited 17×
- Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. BakerSixth Circuit· 1914-06-30· cited 17×
- Dunham v. Dennison Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 15×
- Buchanan v. Wyeth Hardware & Manufacturing Co.Eighth Circuit· 1931-02-18· cited 14×
- National Nut Co. of California v. Sontag Chain Stores Co.Ninth Circuit· 1939-11-03· cited 9×
- Mantz v. KerstingS.D. California· 1939-10-14· cited 9×
- Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLCFederal Circuit· 2019-06-17· cited 8×
- Automatic Switch Co. v. Monitor Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland· 1910-06-15· cited 8×
- Boss Mfg. Co. v. ThomasEighth Circuit· 1910-10-11· cited 8×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Miller v. Brass Co.Supreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 246×
- James v. CampbellSupreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 159×
- Shepard v. CarriganSupreme Court· 1886-02-01· cited 152×
- Heald v. RiceSupreme Court· 1882-03-18· cited 78×
- Roemer v. PeddieSupreme Court· 1889-12-09· cited 74×
- Royer v. CoupeSupreme Court· 1892-12-19· cited 55×
Other cases named Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
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.