Supreme Court of the United States, 1894

Dunham v. Dennison Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 26, 1894 · Gray

154 U.S. 103; 14 S. Ct. 986; 38 L. Ed. 924; 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2219 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles G. Goe, (with whom was Mr. Arthv/r 8. Browne on the brief,) for appellant., Mr. W. W. Swan for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

National Nut Co. of California v. Sontag Chain Stores Co. (9th Cir. 1939)
Otis Elevator Co. v. Atlantic Elevator Co. (2d Cir. 1931)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1951)
Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co. (8th Cir. 1932)
Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co. (9th Cir. 1923)
Morse Chain Co. v. Link Belt Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1910)
In re Starkey (D.C. Cir. 1903)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co. (4th Cir. 1901)
Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. National Nut Co. of Cal. (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
Overweight Counterbalance Elevator Co. v. Improved Order of Red Men's Hall Ass'n (9th Cir. 1899)
Eby v. King (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Mast. Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill & Pump Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa 1895)

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

Me. Justice Gray,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, and the reasons against maintaining the suit, are so clearly and fully stated in the opinion delivered in the Circuit Court, that there is no occasion for extended discussion.

The patent of May 8, 1883, was expressly and distinctly, both in the specification and in the claims, limited to an envelope, with an opening at' one end; with a flap, attached to the envelope at that end, of sufficient size to cover the whole of that side of the envelope in which the opening was; and with an eyelet in the flap, resting on an eyelet in the opposite end of the envelope, through which eyelets the flap could be. secured to the envelope, and both flap and envelope be fastened to the object to be carried. The patentee thus gave the public to understand' that an envelope, the flap of which did not cover its whole length, would not come within his patent, and might rightfully be made by any one. After the defendant had made envelopes with a short flap of semi-circular shape and covering little more than the opening of the envelope, (which, it is admitted, did not infringe the plaintiff’s patent as originally issued,) the plaintiff obtained a re-issue, enlarging the claims, and altering the specification throughout, so as to include an envelope with a flap of any size or shape, and to make the invention consist, not, as in the lóading words of the description in the original patent, of “ an envelope with an end flap covering its side,” but in “ a tag provided with means for attaching it to the merchandise, and with an envelope or pocket to receive a bill or invoice of the merchandise.” The words of the description in the original patent were neither technical nor complicated; but they were of the simplest kind, and their meaning and scope could *111 not have been misunderstood by any one who read them with the slightest attention, least of all by the patentee. To uphold such a reissue under such circumstances would be to grant a new and distinct privilege to the patentee at the expense of innocent parties, and would be inconsistent with the whole course of recent decisions in this court. Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156; Huber v. Nelson Co., 148 U. S. 270; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287; Corbin Co. v. Eagle Co., 150 U. S. 38.

The patent of November 24, 1885, has clearly not been infringed by the defendant; for the peculiar feature of this patent consists in the flap being constructed so that it can be opened, and the contents taken out, without tearing the envelope or removing or breaking the fastenings; whereas in the defendant’s. envelope that flap is fastened down so that it cannot be opened without injury to it or to the envelope, and the contents are taken out by opening a flap, no more firmly secured than with gum, at the opposite end of the envelope.

Upon these grounds, without considering the questions of lack of novelty and invention in the several patents, the entry must be

Decree affirmed.

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