American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.
Decision Date | 02 March 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 48.,48. |
Citation | 283 U.S. 1 |
Parties | AMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS, INCORPORATED, v. BROGDEX CO. |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
Messrs. W. Brown Morton and R.T.M. McCready, with whom Mr. George E. Middleton was on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. Charles Neave, with whom Messrs. Melville Church, Roy F. Steward, and Mitford C. Massie were on the brief, for respondent.
The Brogdex Company, present owner of United States Letters Patent No. 1,529,461, relating to "certain new and useful improvements in the art of preparing fresh fruit for market," applied for August 13, 1923, and issued to Brogden and Trowbridge March 10, 1925, presented its bill of complaint to the District Court for Delaware April 15, 1926, wherein it charged that the defendant (petitioner here), the American Fruit Growers, Inc., had infringed, and asked an injunction, accounting, damages, etc. It relied upon Claims Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which describe the process of treatment, also Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26, which concern the product.
Both courts below held all of these claims valid and infringed; and directed that petitioner be enjoined from using any process therein specified, also from manufacturing, selling, or using "treated fruit embodying and containing the invention described in said letters patent and secured by any of said product claims."
"The claim of a patent must always be explained by and read in connection with the specification." Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 432.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Bergy
...(see n. 3, supra) now lead me to the conclusion that even under the analysis provided in American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801, 8 USPQ 131 (1930), the claimed microorganism is a "manufacture" within the meaning of the 6 Supplemental brief of the......
-
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
...new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery." American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S.Ct. 328, 330, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931). Similarly, "composition of matter" has been construed consistent with its common usage to include "......
-
Ass'n For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent
...identifying it was costly or time-consuming. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 68 S.Ct. 440; Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11-13, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931); Gen. Elec. Co. v. De Forest Radio Co., 28 F.2d 641, 642-43 (3d Cir.1928). The distinction between ......
-
In re Bilski
...which I understand to be something made by the hands of man." Id. at 98 (emphases added); accord American Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931) (giving "anything made for use from raw or prepared materials" as one definition of In short, the history......
-
Federal Circuit Reverses N.Y. District Court: Claims to 'Isolated' DNA Are Eligible for Patent Protection
...v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980); Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 (1887); see also Am. Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relie......
-
Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
...patent description”). 151. O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 119 (1854). 152. Id. ; see also Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931); Shell Dev. Co. v. Watson, 149 F. Supp. 279, 283 (D.D.C. 1957). 153. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. at 310. 154. John M. Golden, Patentab......
-
Chapter §23.04 Remedies for Infringement of Design Patents
...qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.' ") (quoting American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801 (1931))).[197] See Samsung Elecs., 137 S. Ct. at 435 (citing cf. 8 D. Chisum, Patents §23.03[2], pp. 23–12 to......
-
A Field Guide to Intellectual Property
...Hruby, 373 F.2d 997, 153 U.S.P.Q. 61 (CCPA 1967). In re Hadden, 20 F.2d 275 (D.D.C. 1927). 12. American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1,51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801 (1931). 13. Carbon black pellets held patentable. Binney & Smith Co. v. United Carbon Co., 125 F. 255, 52 U.S.P.......
-
That's Easy! I Can Do That With Pen and Paper!: Why the Mental Steps Doctrine Could Bring an End to Patent Protection for Software
...the original purpose of the patent system to encompass any new and useful invention); American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931) (using a dictionary to define a manufacture as "the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these mater......