Ball Socket Fastener Co v. Kraetzer
Citation | 150 U.S. 111,14 S.Ct. 48,37 L.Ed. 1019 |
Decision Date | 06 November 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 58,58 |
Parties | BALL & SOCKET FASTENER CO. v. KRAETZER |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was a bill in equity originally filed for the infringement of six letters patent for improvements in glove fasteners, five of which patents were issued to William S. Richardson, and one to Albert G. Mead.
A plea having been filed upon the ground of multifariousness, two of the patents were stricken from the bill upon the application of the plaintiff.
The only patent relied upon at the hearing or covered by the assignments of error was that the Albert G. Mead, No. 325,688, issued September 8, 1885, for a 'button.' In his specification, patentee states:
Defendant was manufacturing under letters patent Nos. 359,614 and 359,615, granted to him March 22, 1887, for improvements in glove fasteners.
The case was heard upon pleadings and proofs, and the bill dismissed upon the ground that the defendant had not infringed. 39 Fed. Rep. 700.
No appeal was taken from the decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill as to the three Richardson patents remaining, and the appeal only involved the consideration of the 4th, 6th, and 7th claims of the Mead patent. These claims were as follows:
'(4) In a fastening device of the nature described, the inclosing portion composed of a hollow socket centrally secured to the fabric by a button head, F, and with the inclosing portion disposed upon the underside of the flap, substantially as stated.'
'(6) A member of a fastening device consisting of a hollow socket, in combination with a revet and button head, whereby it is centrally attached to the fabric, substantially as set forth.
'(7) A member of a festening device composed of a hollow socket, D, centrally attached by an eyelet, 1, the latter resting upon and within an annular depression, q. formed in a concaved collet or disk, E, substantially for the purpose herein set forth.'
Thos. Wm. Clarke, for appellant.
John R. Bennett and Wm. B. H. Dowse, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The invention of Mead consists of a glove fastener having on the button side a knob with a shank to it, which passes through two washers, one of which washers is avove, and the other below, the glove fabric, and the shank is upset on the lower side of the lower washer. The swell of the knob is sufficient to allow of an engagement with the clasp or spring sides of the button-hole member of the fastener. This button-hole member, which is the one alleged to be infringed, consists of an imperforate cap or button head, F, and an elastic socket, D. The button head, F, consists of three parts, a solid cap, F, an interior disk, E, perforated at the center, and the attaching eyelet, 1, descending from it. A modification of this portion of the device is shown in Fig. 12, wherein the imperforated cap or button head, F, is omitted, the button head consisting simply of a dished washer, E. In this form, which is as efficient and much cheaper, the eyelet is made flush with the exterior surface of the disk, E. In order to present a more perfect finish, an at the same time to prevent the edges thereof from catching, the patentee forms an annular depression...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Genetics Inst. Llc v. Vaccines
...the Supreme Court has characterized such after-acquired knowledge as an “afterthought,” Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U.S. 111, 117, 116–17, 14 S.Ct. 48, 37 L.Ed. 1019 (1893), and has declined to give it weight in determining patent validity. For example, in Graham v. John Dee......
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc.
...in the art.”) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966)); Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U.S. 111, 116–17, 14 S.Ct. 48, 37 L.Ed. 1019 (1893) (discounting an advantage of a patented invention that “was not originally within the contemplatio......
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
...the art.”) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966) ); Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U.S. 111, 116–17, 14 S.Ct. 48, 37 L.Ed. 1019 (1893) (discounting an advantage of a patented invention that “was not originally within the contemplation ......
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc.
...in the art.”) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966)); Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U.S. 111, 116–17, 14 S.Ct. 48, 37 L.Ed. 1019 (1893) (discounting an advantage of a patented invention that “was not originally within the contemplatio......