Mahn v. Harwood
Citations
- 112 U.S. 354
- 5 S. Ct. 174
- 28 L. Ed. 665
- 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1889
Syllabus
<p>A patent for ball-covers issued to Janies H. Osgood May 21, 1872, reissued April 11, 1876, held invalid as to the new and enlarged claims, because, there was unreasonable delay in applying for it, the only object of the réissue being to enlarge the claims.</p> <p>The principles announced in the case of Millar v. The Brass Company, 104 IT. S. 350, in reference to reissuing patents for the purpose of enlarging the claims, reiterated and explained.</p> <p>It was not intended in that case to question the conclusiveness, in suits for in- . fringement, of the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents on matters of fact necessary to be decided before issuing the patent, except as-the statute gives specific defences ; but those defences are not the only ones that may be made ; if it appears that the Commissioner has granted or reissued a patent without authority of law, this will be a good defence ; as, where the thing patented is not a patentable invention, or where a reissue is for a different'invention from that described in the original patent, &e.</p> <p>A patent cannot be lawfully reissued for the mere purpose of enlarging the claim, unless there has been a clear mistake inadvertently committed in the wording of the claim, and the application for reissue is made within a reasonably short time. Whether there has been such an inadvertent mistake is, in general, a matter of fact for the Commissioner to decide ; but whether the application is made in reasonable time is matter of law, which the court may determine by comparing the reissued patent with the original, and, if necessary, with j¿he records in the Patent Office when presented by the record.</p> <p>The application for a reissue in such cases must be made within a reasonable time; because the rights of the public, conceded by the original patent, are directly affected and violated by an enlargement of the claim ; and the patentee’s continued acquiescence in the public enjoyment of such right, for an unreasonable
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The public is notified and informed . . . that [the patentee’s] claim to invention is for such and such an element or combination, and for noth- ing more.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bradley, Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
163 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court· 1950-10-09· cited 1,620×
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court· 1951-01-08· cited 1,146×
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Federal Circuit· 1992-05-19· cited 585×
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court· 1949-05-16· cited 372×
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court· 1944-02-28· cited 252×
- Marconi Wireless Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-06-21· cited 237×
- Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-10-11· cited 184×
- Shepard v. CarriganSupreme Court· 1886-02-01· cited 152×
- Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. And Mark FraterFederal Circuit· 2002-03-28· cited 139×
- Picard v. United Aircraft CorporationSecond Circuit· 1942-05-28· cited 135×
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court· 1924-04-07· cited 123×
- Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1960-01-14· cited 116×
- U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Supreme Court· 1942-04-27· cited 111×
- Chapman v. WintroathSupreme Court· 1920-03-01· cited 102×
- Milcor Steel Co. v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court· 1942-04-27· cited 78×
- Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co. of Cal.Supreme Court· 1940-05-20· cited 75×
- Roemer v. PeddieSupreme Court· 1889-12-09· cited 74×
- Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., Hutzler Mfg. Co., and C. B. Cotton & Co., Inc.Second Circuit· 1962-04-02· cited 72×
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co.Fourth Circuit· 1901-05-07· cited 72×
- Kearney & Trecker Corporation v. Giddings & Lewis, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1972-04-17· cited 71×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court· 1883-03-18· cited 407×
- Brown v. PiperSupreme Court· 1875-11-18· cited 342×
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court· 1877-01-18· cited 297×
- Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1876-04-10· cited 258×
- Miller v. Brass Co.Supreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 246×
- Burr v. DuryeeSupreme Court· 1864-03-28· cited 178×
- James v. CampbellSupreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 159×
- Newhall v. SangerSupreme Court· 1876-05-18· cited 141×
- Slawson v. Grand Street RailroadSupreme Court· 1883-04-23· cited 122×
- Leggett v. AverySupreme Court· 1880-02-18· cited 85×
- Reichart v. FelpsSupreme Court· 1868-03-16· cited 52×
- King v. GallunSupreme Court· 1883-10-29· cited 42×
- Glue Co. v. UptonSupreme Court· 1878-05-13· cited 41×
Other cases named Mahn v. Harwood
1 other CourtListener record shares 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.