Hollister v. Benedict Burnham Manuf
Decision Date | 05 January 1885 |
Citation | 113 U.S. 59,28 L.Ed. 901,5 S.Ct. 717 |
Parties | HOLLISTER, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. BENEDICT & BURNHAM MANUF'G Co. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 60-61 intentionally omitted]
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellant.
S. W. Kellogg and John S. Beach, for appellees.
This is a bill in equity to enjoin the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 93,391, issued to Edward A. Locke for certain improvements in identifying revenue marks or labels, dated August 3, 1869, the appellees being assignees of the patentee and the appellant, the collector of internal revenue for the Second collection district of Connecticut.
The specification and claims, with the accompanying drawings, are as follows:
'This invention is designed more especially for use in sealing liquor casks with identifying marks or labels for revenue purposes, and in such a manner that, while truly designating the contents of the cask, or giving such other indication as may be demanded, they cannot be fraudulently removed. Fig. 1 represents a printed paper revenue stamp, the circular portion at the right hand being the stamp proper, which is applied to the cask or box, and the portion at the left hand being the 'stub,' or that portion retained by the government official. Fig. 2 represents a separate strip, which is shown in Fig. 1 as attached at its left end to the stub of the paper stamp proper, in such manner that its coupons may be readily cut off and permanently affixed to the stamp proper when the latter is secured to the cask. Fig. 3 represents a metallic piece or strip, shown as detached, and before being applied to the stamp. The main body of the sheet of paper being printed substantially as shown, so as to designate by a letter of the alphabet, or otherwise, the appropriate series, and with blanks for the particular number of each series, and also with a number indicating numbers of gallons, etc., in tens, has also a series of numbers, from one to nine, inclusive, any one of which may be punched out by the proper official, in accordance with the actual number of gallons contained in the vessel. Thus, if 126 be the proper number of gallons, and 120 be the whole number printed upon the particular stamp, the officer, in order to indicate 126, would punch through the digital number 6, both upon the circular stamp and upon its 'stub' or counter-check.
or bankers' check-books, so that each stamp, as cut out, shall leave in the book its corresponding marginal piece or stub, having thereon a record of letters, figures, marks, etc., according with those upon such stamps.
The following is a copy of the face of the tax-paid internal revenue stamp used by the appellant, and claimed to be an infringement of the patent:
As described by the complainant's witnesses, this stamp ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Hous. Sys.
...Co. v. Int'l Curtis Marine Turbine Co. , 246 U.S. 28, 39–40, 38 S.Ct. 271, 62 L.Ed. 560 (1918) ; Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. , 113 U.S. 59, 67, 5 S.Ct. 717, 28 L.Ed. 901 (1885) ; James v. Campbell , 104 U.S. 356, 357–58, 26 L.Ed. 786 (1881) ("That [the grant of a patent] confer......
- U.S. v. Byers
-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... 430,755 is void for want of patentable novelty ... Hollister v. Manufacturing Co., 113 U.S. 59, 72, 73, ... 5 Sup.Ct. 717, 28 L.Ed ... ...
-
Co v. United States 10
...U.S. 131, 56 S.Ct. 701, 80 L.Ed. 1085. 11 James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, 357, 358, 26 L.Ed. 786; Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 59, 67, 5 S.Ct. 717, 721, 28 L.Ed. 901; Wm. Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. Co. v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U.S. 28, 39,......
-
Secondary considerations: a structured framework for patent analysis.
...earlier units sold by others or ... dollar amounts."). As to proven value in commerce, see Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 59, 71-72 (1885) (noting that the invention in question had been "abundantly proven" superior to the prior art in the course of its use by the go......