Supreme Court of the United States, 1949

Faulkner v. Gibbs

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 14, 1949 · Black, Douglas

338 U.S. 267; 70 S. Ct. 25; 94 L. Ed. 2d 62; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 3084 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Robert W. Fulwider and James P. Burns argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Harold W. Mattingly., Herbert A. Huebner argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber Company (6th Cir. 1960)
Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents v. Frederick C. Bersworth and the Dow Chemical Company (D.C. Cir. 1958)
Application of Newton (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1951)
Application of Dalton (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1951)
Sid W. Richardson, Inc. v. Bryan (District Court, S.D. Texas 1956)
Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Lyophile-Cryochem Corporation (9th Cir. 1950)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1977)
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1977)
Estelle v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 1976)
Neil v. Biggers (Supreme Court of the United States 1972)
Esco Corp. v. Hensley Equipment Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1965)
Electrolux Corp. v. Dustpak Ltd. (District Court, E.D. New York 1963)
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated v. Collins Estate, Inc. (4th Cir. 1959)
Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation (9th Cir. 1959)
Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. Link Aviation, Inc. (District Court, N.D. New York 1959)
Thomas E. Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc. (5th Cir. 1958)
Inglett & Company, Inc. v. Everglades Fertilizer Company, Inc. (5th Cir. 1958)
Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co. (9th Cir. 1957)
Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co. (9th Cir. 1957)
Delco Chemicals, Inc. v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1957)
Jewell W. Vanderveer v. Erie Malleable Iron Company (3d Cir. 1956)
Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1956)
Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co. (9th Cir. 1955)
The UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUND. v. Block Drug Co. (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1955)
Wittlin v. Remco, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1955)

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

Per Curiam.

The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 170 F. 2d 34 (1948). Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. S. 1 (1946), we granted certiorari.

The record, briefs and arguments of counsel lead us to the view that Halliburton, supra, is inapposite. We there *268 held the patent invalid because its language was too broad at the precise point of novelty. In the instant case, the patent has been sustained because of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element.

After the suit in this cause was initiated in the District Court, petitioner modified his device. The courts below held that this modification was insubstantial and did not place petitioner outside the scope of respondent’s patent.

We will not disturb the concurrent findings upon the issues presented to us in the petition for certiorari. We are not persuaded that the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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