Unionmachine Company v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Docket Number | PAPER-BAG |
| Citation | 97 U.S. 120,24 L.Ed. 935 |
| Parties | UNIONMACHINE COMPANY v. MURPHY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The Union Paper-Bag Machine Company, assignee of William Goodale, to whom letters-patent No. 24,734, for an improvement in machines for making paper-bags, were issued July 12, 1859, and subsequently extended, brought this suit to restrain Merrick Murphy and R. W. Murphy from infringing said letters. The respondents justified under letters-patent No. 146,774, issued Jan. 27, 1874, to Merrick Murphy.
The court below dismissed the bill, whereupon the complainants appealed here.
The remaining facts are stated, and the respective machines described, in the opinion of the court.
Mr. George Harding for the appellants.
Mr. Samuel S. Boyd, contra.
Rights secured to an inventor by letters-patent are property which consists in the exclusive privilege of making and using the invention, and of vending the same to others to be used, for the period prescribed by the Patent Act; and the provision is, that every patent and any interest therein shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. Rev. Stat., sects. 4884, 4898.
Letters-patent No. 24,734, bearing date July 12, 1859, were granted to William Goodale, for new and useful improvements in machinery for making paper-bags, as more fully described in the specification. Patents at that date were granted for the period only of fourteen years; but the record shows that the same was duly extended for the further term of seven years from the expiration of the original term, and that the patentee, on the 14th of July, two days subsequent to the extension of the patent, by an instrument in writing, sold and assigned all his right, title, and interest in the patent to the complainants, who instituted the present suit. What they charge is that the respondents are making and using the patented improvement, the title to which they acquired by virtue of the aforesaid written assignment.
Service was made; and the respondents appeared and filed an answer, setting up several defences, all of which are abandoned except the one denying the charge of infringement. Proofs were taken; and the Circuit Court, having heard the parties, entered a decree dismissing the bill of complaint. Prompt appeal to this court was taken by the complainants; and they now assign for error the decree of the Circuit Court in dismissing the bill of complaint, it being conceded that it was dismissed upon the ground that the charge of infringement was not proved.
Machines for making paper-bags are old, as both sides admit; and the evidence in this case shows that they have been constructed by many persons and in various forms for more than twenty years, and with more or less utility. Neither party, in this case, claims to be the original and first inventor of an entire machine of the kind; nor could such a claim, if made, be sustained, in view of the admitted state of the art. Improvements in various parts of such a machine are claimed by the assignor of the complainants; but, inasmuch as the charge of infringement is confined to the first claim of the patent, it will be sufficient to describe the nature and operation of the principal device embodied in that claim, without attempting to give any minute description of the other parts of the machine.
Seven claims are annexed to the specification, the one in question being described in substance and effect as follows: Making the cutter which cuts the paper from the roll in such form that in cutting off the paper it cuts it in the required form to fold into a bag without further cutting out.
Such a machine, of course, has a frame which supports all its parts, and it also has a table to support the paper as it is unwound from the roll and moved forward under the cutter. Prior to the operation, the roll is prepared, being of the proper width to fold lengthwise and form the bag. Feed-rollers are arranged in the machine, for moving the paper under the cutter as it is unwound from the roll, the cutter being attached to a horizontal bar, and working within vertical guides erected on opposite sides of the machine. Operating vertically, as the cutter does, it will be sufficient to state that it derives its upward movement from two cams on a constantly rotating horizontal shaft, and that it descends by its own weight, which is sufficient to cause the cutting of the paper by the cutter, the descent taking place during the intermissions between the feeding movements of the paper.
Devices and means for forming the bag of the desired length and width are also shown in the specification and drawings, together with the devices and means for effecting the side-lapping over the device called the former, and the devices and means for pasting one edge of the same by passing it over a pasteroller, which causes it to adhere so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 120, 125, 24 L.Ed. 935, 936 (1878); Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147, 156 (1929). In Graver Tank Co......
-
Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.
...to protect the patentee from devices that differ merely in name, form or shape from the patented invention, Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125, 24 L.Ed. 935 (1877), but perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result.8Graver, supra, 339 U......
-
E2interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.
...Cir. 2004); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts v. CardinalInds., 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir. 1988). 2. Function /way /result test: Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 124 (1878); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39-40 (1997); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.......
-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Electric & Mfg. Co.
... ... was a bill in equity filed by the appellant, Westinghouse ... Electric & Manufacturing Company, in the Circuit Court of ... the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. The ... bill ... name, form, location, or shape. Machine Company v ... Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125, 24 L.Ed. 935; Winans v ... Denmead, 15 How. 330, 342, 14 L.Ed. 717; Blandy ... ...
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...eg., Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929); Morely Sewing Mach. Co., 129 U.S. at 283-84; Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125 (95.) See Croswell, supra note 91, at 210; see also Pennwalt:, 833 F.2d at 966 (Newman, I dissenting) (citing, inter alia, Morey v. Lockwoo......
-
The Antibody Patent Paradox.
...(408.) Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39-40 (1997). (409.) Id. at 38 (quoting Mach. Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125 (1878)). Strictly speaking, after Warner-Jenkinson, equivalence is tested not by reference to the patent claim as a whole but element by element;......
-
Breaking the law to break into the black: patent infringement as a business strategy.
...result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form, or shape.'" Id. at 608 (quoting Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125 (1877)). (9.) 35 U.S.C. [section] 271; see Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 605. The 'doctrine of equivalents' does not explicitly require courts t......
-
Means-plus-function clauses in patent claims: a tortuous path.
...(22.) See Seymour, 78 U.S. at 547. (23.) Sanitary Refrigerator Co., 280 U.S. at 41-42 (quoting Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy, 97 U.S. 120, 125 (1877)) (emphasis added). (24.) See id. at 42-43. (25.) Cont'l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419-21 (1908). (26.) Id. at 42......