Clain v. Ortmayer
Citation | 141 U.S. 419,35 L.Ed. 800,12 S.Ct. 76 |
Parties | McCLAIN v. ORTMAYER et al |
Decision Date | 02 November 1891 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Bill in equity by Edward L. McClain against Andrew Ortmayer and others. The bill was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
The facts of the case fully appear in the following statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two letters patent granted to appellant, McClain, viz., patent No. 259,700, issued June 20, 1882, for a 'pad for horse-collars,' and patent No. 267,011, issued November 7, 1882, for an improvement upon the same. Another patent, numbered 298,626, issued May 13, 1884, to J. Scherling for a 'pad fastening,' and assigned to the appellant, was originally included in the suit, but was abandoned upon the argument in this court.
In the specification of the first patent, No. 259,700, the patentee stated that his invention related 'to that class of horse-collar pads which are placed between the collar and the horse's shoulders, and are adjustably attached to the collar, and known as 'sweat-pads," the object of the invention being 'to produce a sweat-pad for a horse-collar which can be easily and readily attached to or taken from the collar, and which can be fitted to collars varying in size.'
He further stated that the pad proper was
His claim was:
'(1) As attachments to a sweat or other horse-collar pad, the elastic springs, s, s, substantially as described, and for the purposes set forth.'
There was a second claim, which, however, became immaterial.
Patent No. 267,011 was for an improvement upon the prior patent, and consisted in discarding that portion of the spring of such patent as embraced the after roll of a collar, and in using the fore roll only. In this connection the patentee stated
The claims of this patent were:
'(1) As an attachment to a horse-collar pad or other harness pad, and as a means of adjustably attaching a pad to a horse-collar or other part of harness, the elastic single roll or single curved spring, S, constructed, arranged, attached, and operating substantially in the manner shown or described, and for or with the purposes set forth.
'(2) The combination, with a horse-collar pad, of elastic single roll or single curve spring, S, substantially in the manner shown or described, and for the purposes set forth.'
The answer of defendants denied that the invention relied upon was no rel, or that the alleged inventors were the first or original inventors thereof, and also denied that the said improvements contained any invention, when compared with the prior art. To the charge of infringement the defendants answered as follows: 'These defendants, on their own understanding of the scope and meaning of said several letters patent, and on the advice of counsel in relation thereto, deny that they have ever in any way infringed upon the same, or upon any of them, or upon any claim thereof.'
Plaintiff's bill was dismissed by the circuit court upon the ground that the first patent was not infringed, and that the second patent, in view of the first, and of the other devices offered in evidence, was void for want of novelty. The opinion of the court is reported in 33 Fed. Rep. 284.
James Moore and Edmund Wetmore, for appellant.
E. Banning and T. A. Banning, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
1. The defense to the first patent was rested principally upon the question of the infringement. Defendants, in their answer, admitted that they had as a corporation and individually manufactured and sold sweat-pads for horse-collars under letters patent issued to defendant Ortmayer; 'that is to say, sweat-pads adapted to be fastened or secured to the collar by a simple hook, made of wire, arranged to clasp the front roll of the collar, but not in any way having or employing the pretended inventions and improvements described and claimed in said several letters patent, or either of them.'
This patent to Ortmayer, numbered 331,813, exhibits a horse-collar, a sweat-pad, a hook, made of wire, 'its curved or hooked portion being so bent or formed as to clasp the outer or exposed part of the front roll of the collar, and so as to have a broad bearing thereon.' The hook is connected to the pad in such a manner as to be joined or hinged thereto, so as to be capable of being turned in the fold of the leather. Says the patentee: 'To apply the pad to the collar it is only necessary to arrange it underneath the collar in the usual manner, first raising the hooks, D, D, and then pushing them downward, so that they will clasp the front roll of the collar.'
It is evident from this patent and from the entire testimony that the defendants made use of a single hook, D, embracing the front roll of the collar only, while the appellant, McClain, has limited himself, perhaps unnecessarily, to the elastic springs, s, , which the drawings and the whole tenor of the specification show to be double, and intended to be clasped around both the fore and after wales of the collar. While the patentee may have been unfortunate in the language he has chosen to express his actual invention, and may have been entitled to a broader claim, we are not at liberty, without running counter to the entire current of authority in this court, to construe such claims to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... statutory requirement, and that it will not alone sustain a ... patent. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 428, 12 ... Sup.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800; Duer v. Lock Co., 149 U.S ... 216, 223, 13 Sup.Ct. 850, 37 L.Ed. 707; Olin v ... ...
-
Altoona Publix Theatres v. Americancorporation Wilmer Vincent Corporation v. Americancorporation
...of the patent which define the invention. See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51, 52, 7 S.Ct. 72, 30 L.Ed. 303; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 423—425, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800; Paper Bag Patent Case (Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.), 210 U.S. 405, 419, 28 S.Ct. 748, 5......
-
WF & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
...the publication of his patent would abandon the thing described to the public unless it already was old. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800; Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224, 230, 13 S.Ct. 854, 37 L.Ed. "The question is not whether Clifford showed himself by ......
-
Coal Processing Equipment, Inc. v. Campbell
...patent, and that every element of a claim charged to be infringed must be found in the infringing device. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 425, 12 S.Ct. 76, 78, 35 L.Ed. 800 (1891); Scharmer v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 525 F.2d 95, 103 (6th Cir.1975); P. Rosenberg, Patent Law Fundamentals, § ......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...infringement is recognized under the doctrine of equivalents, discussed infra notes 22-24. (6.) See, eg., McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891) (explaining that the patent must describe the exact scope of an invention so as to "secure to [die patentee] all to which he is entitled, [......
-
Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...reference characters to be 73% in 1860, 82% in 1880, 22% in 1900, and 0% in both 1920 and 1940); see also, e.g., McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 421 (1891) (construing a claim issued in 1882 that read, in full, "1. As attachments to a sweat or other horse-collar pad, the elastic springs ......
-
Chapter §2.04 Claim Definiteness Requirement
..." 'appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them.' " Markman, 517 U.S., at 373, 116 S.Ct. 1384 (quoting McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800 (1891)) . . . . Otherwise there would be "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter o......
-
Secondary considerations: a structured framework for patent analysis.
...and the resort to lavish expenditures in advertising, may co-operate to promote a large marketable demand."); McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 428 (1891) ("[T]he extent to which a patented device has gone into use is an unsafe criterion ... of its actual utility" because sales volume may ......