Bene v. Jeantet
Decision Date | 05 March 1889 |
Citation | 129 U.S. 683,32 L.Ed. 803,9 S.Ct. 428 |
Parties | BENE et al. v. JEANTET |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. T. Smith, for appellant.
W. P. S. Melvin, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, by John Bene and Adolph Gr unberg against Emile Jeantet, praying an injunction, accounting, and damages for an alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,637, granted to Bene, March 25, 1879, on an application filed March 4, 1879, for an improvement in the process of refining and bleaching hair. Counsel for complainant stated in the record that no claim is made in this suit for the bleaching of hair, except so far as the bleaching may result incidentally from the process of refining; and the only issue presented by the pleadings, therefore, relates to the question of infringement so far as the process of refining hair is concerned, there being no issue raised as to the validity of the patent in any respect. The nature and object of the invention are set forth in the specification as follows:
The court below held that were it not for the latter part of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...infringement is upon the patent owner who must show infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 430, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889); Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 758 (Fed.Cir.1984); P. Blaustein, Learned Hand on Patents ......
-
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) ; see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889) ). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts......
-
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889)). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts. ......
-
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) ; see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889) ). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts......
-
Exceptionally Vague: Attorney Fee Shifting Under the Lanham Act
...be used in practice).65. Id. See, e.g., Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 519.66. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1758. See, e.g., Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688 (1889).67. 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (2015).68. 62 Trademark Rep. 239.69. Id.70. Id.71. Id. 72. Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1879) (holding th......