Supreme Court of the United States, 1869

Bennet v. Fowler

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 29, 1869 · Nelson

75 U.S. 445; 19 L. Ed. 431; 8 Wall. 445; 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1122 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Coburn, for the appellant, contended:, 1. That the court erred in affirming the validity of the two reissued patents., Mr. Goodwin, contra.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Application of Horneman (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1952)
Application of Coleman (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1951)
Kalo Inoculant Co. v. Funk Bros. Seed Co. (7th Cir. 1947)
In re Hirschhorn (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1947)
In re Ferenci (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1936)
In re Pedersen (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1934)
American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Prosperity Co. (2d Cir. 1924)
United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen (D.C. Cir. 1903)
In re Moss (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1939)
Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
In re Frasch (D.C. Cir. 1906)
In re Briede (D.C. Cir. 1906)
In re Frasch (D.C. 1902)
Peifer v. Brown & Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1898)
Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio 1898)
Sessions v. Romadka (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin 1884)
McKay v. Dibert (United States Circuit Courts 1881)
Spring v. Domestic Sewing-Machine Co. (United States Circuit Courts 1881)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

An objection has' been taken by counsel for the defendants that the court erred in affirming the validity of the two patents, Nos. 1869, 1870.

It may be, that if the improvements set forth in both specifications had been incorporated into one patent, the patentee *448 taking care to protect himself as to all his improvements by proper and several claims, it would have been sufficient. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to lay down any general rule by which to determine when a given invention or improvements shall be embraced in one, two, or more patents. Some discretion must necessarily be left on tbis subject to the head of the Patent Office. It5is often a nice and perplexing question. It is true, in the present case both patents relate to the lifting and depositing a load of hay in a mow of a barn, or in a rick or shed. But; in No. 1870, the lifter is somewhat differently constructed, so as to adapt it specially to the stacking of hay, which, doubtless, led the office to divide the improvements, and issue separate patents. The improvements were embraced'in one, in tbe original patent.

The counsel also objects that the machines of the defendants do not infringe the complainant’s patents, but, if he .had intended to contest this point, he should have introduced proof to this effect. Proof of the infringements given, that the machines made and used by the defendants were substantially like the complainant’s, was sufficient, if not rebutted. Models were also produced on the argument before the court, which confirm this proof.

Decree aeeirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.