Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 547,100 U.S. 110 |
| Parties | ELASTIC FABRICS COMPANY v. SMITH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
This is a bill in equity, filed Nov. 19, 1868, by William Smith against the Glendale Elastic Fabrics Company, wherein he alleges that he is the original and first inventor of certain new and useful improvements in corded and elastic fabrics, for which letters-patent of the United States No. 9653, dated April 5, 1853, were, in due form, issued to him; that the letters, after they were extended, March 28, 1867, for seven years, were finally reissued in three parts,—reissue No. 2848, Jan. 14, 1868, division A, for improvements in weaving; reissue 3014, June 30, 1868, division B, for improvements in woven fabrics; and reissue No. 2844, Jan. 14, 1868, division C, for improvements in looms for weaving; that the company has infringed the rights secured to him by divisions A and C. He therefore prays for an injunction and an account.
The company denies the allegations of the bill as to novelty and infringement, and claims that the reissues were illegal.
Smith, Jan. 22, 1870, filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer alleging that the specifications and claims of division B are too broad, and include that whereof he is not the inventor.
The court below, on the cause being set down for hearing, adjudged that the letters as reissued in division A and division C were valid; that Smith was the original and first inventor of the improvements therein described; that he recover of the company the profits received or made by it from the use, manufacture, or sale of the patented improvement; that a master take and report an account of such profits; and that an injunction be awarded.
The master reported that the company had made no profits, and the court, Jan. 27, 1876, passed a decree against the company for costs of suit. The company thereupon appealed.
Mr. Benjamin Dean for the appellant.
Mr. R. P. Lowe for the appellee.
For all practical purposes, except costs, the appellant was successful in the court below. While the validity of the appellee's patent was sustained, it was a fruitless victory to him, because the patent expired before the determination of the suit, and the court found that he was not entitled to recover from the appellant either profits or damages. As the decree stands, it sustains an expired patent, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
...the sound discretion of the court before whom the cause was tried, and those decisions were cited with approval in Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110 25 L. Ed. 547, and Paper Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 772 26 L. Ed. 959." See, also, Ex parte Jaffray, Fed. Cas. No. 7,170; Spaulding v......
-
Van Teslaar v. Bender
... ... 1970); Hollingsworth v. Balcom, 441 F.2d 419 (6th Cir. 1971); Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1969); Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F.2d 705 ... Appalachian Power Company v. Federal Power Commission, 328 F.2d 237, 240 (4th Cir. 1964), cert ... ...
-
Howard v. Wilbur
...not be entertained simply to determine a question of costs, when the question at issue has become moot. Glendale Elastic Fabrics Company v. Smith, 100 U.S. 110, 25 L.Ed. 547; Paper-Bag Cases, 105 U.S. 766, 772, 26 L.Ed. 959; Heitmuller v. Stokes, supra, 256 U.S. 359, 362, 41 S.Ct. 522, 65 L......
-
In re Michigan Cent. R. Co.
... ... In 1881 ... the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, as trustee under a ... mortgage made to secure bonds issued by the ... v. Brig Malik Adhel, 2 How ... 209, 237, 11 L.Ed. 239; Elastic Fabric Co. v. Smith, ... 100 U.S. 110, 25 L.Ed. 547; Dubois v. Kirk, 158 ... ...