Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 113 U.S. 59
• 5 S. Ct. 717
• 28 L. Ed. 901
• 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1651

Syllabus

<p>Novelty and increased utility in an improvement upon previous devices do not necessarily make it an invention.</p> <p>A device which displays only the expected skill of the maker’s calling, and involves only the exercise of ordinary faculties of reasoning upon materials supplied by special knowledge and facility of manipulation resulting from habitual intelligent practice, is in no sense a creative work of inventive faculty, such as the Constitution and the patent laws aim to encourage and reward.</p> <p>The third claim in the specification and claims of the patent issued to Edward A. Locke, August 3, 1869, for an improvement in revenue stamps, although new and useful, is not such an improvement upon the devices previously in use, as entitles it to be regarded as an invention.</p> <p>While it would seem clear that a suit may be maintained in the Court of Claims against the United States to recover for the use of a patented invention by an officer of the government for its benefit, if the right' of the patentee is acknowledged; Semble, that it may even be maintained when ‘ the exclusive right of the patentee is contested.</p>