Henry Reilly, Eugene Whitman, and Hastings, Appellants v. Samuel Morse, Alfred Vail, and Francis Smith

Decision Date01 December 1853
Citation56 U.S. 62,15 How. 62,14 L.Ed. 601
PartiesHENRY O'REILLY, EUGENE L. WHITMAN, AND W. F. B. HASTINGS, APPELLANTS, v. SAMUEL F. B. MORSE, ALFRED VAIL, AND FRANCIS O. J. SMITH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

(Mr. Justice Curtis) having been of counsel, did not sit in this cause.

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, sitting as a Court of Equity.

It is difficult to make a fair report of this case without writing a book. The arguments of counsel would fill a volume by themselves.

The history of the case was drawn up by the learned Judge, who presides over the District Court of the United States in Kentucky, and whose decree was under review. Permission has been given by Judge Monroe that the reporter may use his statement as preliminary to this report, and he avails himself with pleasure of this kindness; because, although the narrative is occasionally interpersed with the opinions which induced the judge to decree an injunction in favor of Morse yet the history is given with great precision and clearness.

The following statement is extracted from the opinion of Judge Monroe:

The complainants, in their bill, allege that Samuel F. B. Morse, one of them, was the true and original inventor of the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, worked by the motive power of electro-magnetism, and of the several improvements thereon, by which intelligence which is in one place is transmitted to other distant places, and that by the letters-patent of the United States, duly issued to him, Samuel F. B. Morse, and by his partial assignments to F. O. J. Smith and Alfred Vail, the other complainants, they together are lawfully invested with the exclusive right of constructing and employing such telegraph for such purpose, throughout the United States, for the terms in the letters-patent mentioned, and which have not yet expired—and they exhibit the letters-patent.

They show that the practicability and great utility of the invention was fully established by the telegraph constructed under the superintendence of Morse, by means of an appropriation made by the Congress of the United States for the purpose, and put in operation between the cities of Washington and Baltimore, in the year 1844.

That afterwards there had been constructed, by the agency and means of joint-stock companies, promoted by the complainant, and operating under contracts and license of the patentee, Morse and his assignees, telegraphs along lines, amounting, in the aggregate, to upwards of four thousand five hundred miles, whereby telegraphic communication was established between the principal cites of the United States, from New Orleans to Boston; and that there were now in progress of construction, numerous additional and other lines, under contracts with them, for more widely extending the benefits of the invention, and they believe that if they are protected in the lawful use of their rights, every section of the United States will, in a short time, have the benefits of their improvements in telegraphic correspondence.

They represent that, in all the lines of telegraphic communication now in successful operation in the United States in transmitting intelligence by means of electro-magnetism, the improvement of S. F. B. Morse, or the chief and essential principles and parts thereof, are employed.

They show that they had caused to be established, a line of telegraphic communication from Louisville, by way of Frankfort and Lexington, to Maysville, Kentucky, which was in successful operation.

They represent that they had caused to be constructed, lines of posts and wires from Louisville in the district of Kentucky, by way of Bardstown, Glasgow, and Scottsville, in Kentucky, and thence by way of Gallatin to Nashville, in the district of Tennessee, for the transmission of intelligence, by means of their improved telegraph; and that they had expended great sums of money therein; and that this line is in the extension to New Orleans, State of Louisiana; and is connected by another line, with Memphis, Tennessee; and that large sums of money will be expended in this work; and all the lines in a short time completed, and the assignments.

They represent that their rights have been repeatedly and explicitly acknowledged and admitted in divers ways and by individuals and large bodies of associated citizens in various sections of the United States; that these had treated with them for the purchase of their rights, or parts thereof, and of licenses to use their patented improvements; and that they had made extensive sales, or licenses, to use them to companies and individuals upon various lines, and amongst others, to the New York, Albany, and Buffalo line; the Washington and New York line; the New York and Boston line; the Washington and Petersburg line; the line from Petersburg to New Orleans; besides numerous shorter and side lines.

They state that they had been thus in the successful and uninterrupted exercise of the rights granted to them by the letters patent of the United States, and had been in nowise disturbed therein, until, by the operations of the defendant, O'Reilly, and the committing of the wrongs presently mentioned, by him and his co-defendants.

This defendant, O'Reilly, they state, had, as early as 1845, entered into a contract with the complainants, and another, then having an interest in the patent, whereby he, O'Reilly, acknowledged their right; and that he had afterwards, in various ways, and for a long period of time, manifested his acquiescence in, and admissions of, the rights and privileges of them, the complainants, and even insisted on his right to the use of them himself, under his contract with them; that he had, under this contract and his claims under it, in fact, used and employed the improved telegraph of the complainants, and persisted in such, his claim, to employ it on all the lines embraced by his contract, without questioning the validity of their patents. But,

They allege that this defendant, Henry O'Reilly, had, by himself, his agents and servants, constructed a line of posts and suspended metallic wires thereon, from the city of Louisville, in the District of Kentucky, by way of Bardstown, to Nashville, in the State of Tennessee, and well knowing all the facts by the complainants' set forth, he and his co-defendants had worked and employed upon said line, a telegraph substantially the same with the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph, invented by the complainant, Morse, and in his patents mentioned, against the will and without any authority from them, the complainants. They show that the terms of the contract, under which O'Reilly claimed their right to the use of the telegraph, on certain other lines where he employed it, did not extend to any country north of the Ohio river, and that there was no color for any claim by the defendants to the use thereof, within the District of Kentucky, or on any part of the lines by them lately constructed.

They represent, especially, that the defendants, in the operation and working of their line of telegraph, so by them constructed, used and employed instruments, apparatus, and means, which are, in the material, substantial, and essential parts thereof, so upon the principle and plan of the said several improvements patented by the complainant, Morse, or the plan and principle of some of said improvements, and not other or different. And,- They state, that by such means the defendants, their servants and agents, had been for the space of more than four months past, and were still, transmitting intelligence over said line, for any person who desired the same; and for such service, and been, and are yet, receiving compensation from the persons for whom the same is performed; all which they allege is in violation of the rights granted by the letters-patent, or of some of the parts thereof.

They further represent, that the defendant, O'Reilly, was extending the line from Nashville to New Orleans, and had extended it to Memphis, and was operating upon the last mentioned line to Memphis, in violation of the rights of them, the complainants, by the use of their patented improvements, or the principle and essential parts thereof; and that he had declared his intention of completing the other line from Louisville to New Orleans, and of then employing the same instruments as he was then using on the line from Louisville to Nashville.

They state that they are informed that the defendants sometimes give out in speeches, that the patents of the complainant, Morse, are void; and at other times, give out and pretend that the machinery and apparatus which they use for the transmission and the reception of the intelligence upon the said line, is a distinct and separate invention, which they, the complainants, are informed the defendants call the Columbian Telegraph:

Whereas, the complainants charge that the patents are good and valid in law, and that the defendant, O'Reilly, by his contract with the patentee, and by his having exercised, and his persisting in his claim to exercise, under it, the exclusive privileges by the patents granted, is estopped from denying their validity. And,

That the said pretended new invention is, in its essential principles, identical with, and upon, the plan of the patented improvements of Morse, and that the use of the same is a violation and infringement of the patent issued to the complainant, Morse.

They allege that the defendants had received, and were then receiving, considerable sums of money for transmitting intelligence on the line from Louisville, within the District of Kentucky, in violation of the rights of the complainants; and they complain that the defendants had, by their unlawful operations, greatly disturbed them in the lawful exercise of their rights, so granted and held by them, and had caused a great diminution of the business of them, the complainants, on their line of telegraph, which they had caused to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
482 cases
  • Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 14 July 2021
    ..., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012).An early example of this approach was set forth in O'Reilly v. Morse , 56 U.S. 62, 15 How. 62, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1853), in which the Supreme Court invalidated the eighth claim in one of Professor Samuel Morse's patents. In Morse , the......
  • Smith v. Brough
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 14 December 1965
    ... 248 F. Supp. 435 ... James Francis SMITH ... Franklin K. BROUGH, Warden, Maryland ... law, Rule 885 does not bar the appellants from invoking the principle set forth in ... 617, 49 L.Ed. 994 (1905); Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125 ... ...
  • Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 29 July 1980
    ...189 DX-775; PTX-390; PTX-368; Pleading Paper 236, pp. 78-80. 190 See 1 Stat. 110; 1 Stat. 321-22; 3 Stat. 119; 16 Stat. 201. 191 56 U.S. 62, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1854). 192 Id., p. 85. 193 Id., p. 99. 194 Id., pp. 118-119. 195 154 U.S.P.Q. 118 (C.C.P.A.1967). 196 See Chisum, Patents §§ 11.04 and 1......
  • Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 8 April 2005
    ...the exclusive right to use the means he specifies to produce the result or effect he describes, and nothing more. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 119, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1853). The Supreme Court further explained that [a]ccurate description of the invention is required by law, for several importa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Affirms Federal Circuit Decision In Amgen v. Sanofi
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 29 May 2023
    ...'numerous prior occasions' it had addressed the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Wood v. Underhill, 5 How. 1 (1846); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); The Incandescent Lamp Patent, 159 U. S. 465 (1895); Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261 (1916); Holland Furniture Co. v. ......
  • PTO Issues New Draft Guidance For Determining Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 5 January 2015
    ...Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 573 U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). 4 See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980); O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 594 5 See Client Alerts for Mayo, Myriad, and Alice. 6 201......
  • Lessons From Amgen v. Sanofi
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 10 July 2023
    ...409 U.S., at 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, for the concept that the judicial exceptions, if patented, would stifle innovation and O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 113, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1854) for the concept that Morse's patent on electromagnetism for writing would preempt a wide swath of technological devel......
  • U.S. Supreme Court Affirmed Patent Enablement Requirement In Amgen
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 6 June 2023
    ...to practice it."10 The Court also revisited its prior decisions addressing the enablement requirement, including O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854), The Incandescent Lamp Patent, 159 U. S. 465 (1895), and Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245 (1928). In Morse, the Court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 books & journal articles
  • Patenting Nature
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-2, November 2019
    • 1 November 2019
    ...2. O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 132 (1853) (citing English precedents, e.g., Neilson v. Harford (1841) 151 Eng. Rep. 1266). 3. See, e.g. , Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948); The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1 (1888); Tilghman......
  • Avoid On-Sale Bar by Filing Early Both in the United States and China Post-Helsinn
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, ......
  • Virtual Influencers: Stretching the Boundaries of Intellectual Property Governing Digital Creations
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, ......
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT