Charles Gayler and Leonard Brown, Plaintiffs In Error v. Benjamin Wilder

Decision Date01 December 1850
Citation51 U.S. 477,13 L.Ed. 504,10 How. 477
PartiesCHARLES J. GAYLER AND LEONARD BROWN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. BENJAMIN G. WILDER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

To continue reading

Request your trial
314 cases
  • Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • April 18, 1984
    ...13 App.D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir.1898). It is in the public benefit to award priority to the person who enhances the public knowledge. Gayler v. Wilder, 51 U.S. 477 (10 Howard) 13 L.Ed. 504 24. Proof of abandonment, suppression or concealment of an invention hinges on the particular facts of each c......
  • United States v. Line Materials Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1948
    ...licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. Rev.Stat. § 4919; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 495, (13 L.Ed. 504); Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515, (19 L.Ed. 37.)' Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 252, 255, 11 S.Ct. 334, 335, 34 L.Ed. 923.......
  • American Refining Co. v. Gasoline Products Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1927
    ...at law in his own name for an infringement. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 255, 11 S. Ct. 334, 34 L. Ed. 923; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 495, 13 L. Ed. 504; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515, 19 L. Ed. 37, and Crown Co. v. Nye Tool Works, 261 U. S. 24, 30, 43 S. Ct. 254, 67 L. Ed.......
  • Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1943
    ...against the defendant for its wrongful use of the patent, and the damages, when collected, would belong to the licensee. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 13 L.Ed. 504;Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U.S. 485, 5 S.Ct. 244, 28 L.Ed. 768;Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 252, 11 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed. 923;P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Kewanee revisited: returning to first principles of intellectual property law to determine the issue of federal preemption.
    • United States
    • Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Vol. 12 No. 2, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...Coffin v. Ogden, 85 U.S. 120, 125 (1873) (the invention accessible to public and therefore anticipated as prior use); cf. Gayle v. Wilder, 51 U.S. 477, 497-98 (1850) (invention not accessible and therefore not anticipated as prior art); H.R. Rep. No. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1952) (the......
  • Chapter §15.08 Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Claim Interpretation Decisions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 15 Patent Claim Interpretation
    • Invalid date
    ...or selling the invention throughout the United States." 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(1). That right "did not exist at common law." Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 13 L.Ed. 504 (1851). Rather, it is a "creature of statute law." Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works, 261 U.S. 24, 40, 43 S......
  • Chapter §22.02 Inter Partes Review
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 22 Challenging Patents in the USPTO (AIA-Implemented Procedures)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Wells Elecs., 525 U.S. 55, 63–64 (1998)).[602] See 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(1).[603] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1374 (quoting Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 13 L.Ed. 504 (1851)).[604] Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1374 (quoting Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works, 261 U.S. 24, 40 (19......
  • PATENTS, PUBLIC FRANCHISES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 2, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...261 U.S. 24, 40 (1923) (citing Chief Justice Taney's public franchise language favorably). (78.) Seymour, 78 U.S. at 533. (79.) Id. (80.) 51 U.S. 477, 493 (81.) Id. at 494. Though Chief Justice Taney refers to the patent grant as a monopoly, this is not necessarily inconsistent with Seymour......
  • 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