Joseph Grant and Others v. and Raymond
| Decision Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Citation | 8 L.Ed. 376,31 U.S. 218,6 Pet. 218 |
| Parties | JOSEPH GRANT AND OTHERS v. E. AND H. RAYMOND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 218-220 intentionally omitted] THIS case came before the court, in the first instance, on a certificate of division in opinion in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
On inspecting the record, it appeared that on the trial of the cause in the circuit court, the counsel for the defendants had excepted to the decisions of the court on various matters which had been presented for the consideration of the court; and that a bill of exceptions had been sealed by the court on their motion.
The record proceeded to state, that the cause afterwards came on for argument on a motion for a new trial, when the opinions of the two judges of the circuit court were opposed upon questions, presented for the decision of the court, excepted to on the trial, as stated in the bill of exceptions: 'that upon the questions thus occurring before the court, the opinions of the said two judges were opposed; and upon request of the counsel for the plaintiffs, the points upon which the disagreement happened, were stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court.'
Mr Webster stated, that a question, preliminary to the argument of the case, was presented for the decision of the court. It was, whether the court would entertain the case as it came up from the circuit court on a division in that court on a motion for a new trial. This court had exercised their right to decide in cases where the opinions of the judges of the circuit court on questions of law had been opposed, when a motion for a new trial was before the court.
Mr Justice Story. In the cases referred to, the division of the court took place on the trial of the cause before the jury, as well as on the motion for a new trial.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall suggested that the case might be brought on if the parties would agree that it should stand as if a judgment had been given by the circuit court on the exceptions. The case, he said, could not be heard on a difference in opinion of the judges of the court, on a motion for a new trial.
The counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants having agreed that the case should stand as suggested by the chief justice, and an agreement in writing to that effect having been filed, the court made the following order.
It is now here by the court considered and ordered, that this cause shall now be heard and decided, as on a writ of error brought after verdict and judgment in the circuit court, on the exceptions which were taken in that court; that the cause shall now proceed, as if judgment had been actually entered in the circuit court for the plaintiffs there, and that the certificate in the case shall be taken, regarded and treated as a writ of error, sued out by the defendants below, on the judgment of the circuit court, and that the question shall be, as in other cases, whether the said judgment ought to be reversed or affirmed: but that this court will reserve its opinion and judgment in this cause till the defendants in the court below shall have sued out a writ of error in this cause to the said circuit court, and filed a return thereto, with a bill of exceptions in this cause, in the usual form, signed by the court below, in this court.
The case came on for argument, after the defendants had sued out a writ of error on a judgment entered in the circuit court for the plaintiffs, in conformity with the suggestion and order of this court. The case was as follows:
The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged infringement of a patent right, and came on for trial in the circuit court in November 1828, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiffs for three thousand two hundred and sixty-six dollars sixty-six cents.
The plaintiffs gave in evidence a patent from the United States, in the following terms, the same being the patent declared upon:
'Whereas Joseph Grant, a citizen of the United States, hath alleged that he hath invented a new and useful improvement in the mode of manufacturing hat bodies by the combination of motions, viz. the rotatory and revolving motion, with the vibrating or transverse motion, which forms the two hat bodies by machinery, and crosses the wool from one extremity of the hat bodies to the other at one operation, called Grant's improved winding machine for setting up hat bodies—his former patent for the same invention, dated the 11th day of August 1821, having been cancelled, owing to the defective specification on which the same was granted—which improvement he states had not been known or used before his application—hath made oath that he does verily believe that he is the true inventor or discoverer of the said improvement; hath paid into the treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, delivered a receipt for the same, and presented a petition to the secretary of state, signifying a desire of obtaining an exclusive property in the said improvement, and praying that a patent may be granted for that purpose.
'These are, therefore, to grant, according to law, to the said Joseph Grant, his heirs, administrators or assigns, for the term of fourteen years, from the 11th day of August 1821, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others to be used, the said improvement, a description whereof is given in the words of the said Joseph Grant himself in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made a part of these presents.
'In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1825, and of the independence of the United States of America the forty-ninth.
[L. S.] J. Q. ADAMS.
By the President. H. CLAY, Secretary of State.
City of Washington, to wit:—I do hereby certify, that the foregoing letters patent were delivered to me on the 23th day of April in the year of our Lord 1825, to be examined; that I have examined the same, and find them conformable to law, and I do hereby return the same to the secretary of state within fifteen days from the date aforesaid, to wit, on this 28th day of April, in the year aforesaid.
WILLIAM WIRT, Attorney General of the U. S.
The schedule referred to in these letters patent, and making part of the same, contained a description, in the words of the said Joseph Grant himself, of his improvement in the mode of manufacturing hat bodies by the combination of motions, viz. the rotary or revolving motion, with the vibrating or transverse motion, which forms the two hat bodies by machinery, and crosses the wool from one extremity of the hat bodies to the other at one operation, called Grant's improved winding machine for setting up hat bodies; his former patent for the same invention, dated on the 11th day of August, A.D. 1821, having been cancelled, owing to the defective specification on which the same was granted.
The schedule, which contained a full description of the invention, and of the mode of using it, was also given in evidence.
The counsel for the plaintiffs also produced and read in evidence a certificate of the secretary of state, duly authenticated under his hand and official seal, and certain papers thereto annexed, in the words and figures following:
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
I certify that the annexed is a true copy of the record of cancellation of a patent granted to Joseph Grant on the 11th of August 1821, and cancelled on the 28th of April, A. D. 1825; also, that the annexed is a true copy of the petition praying for the cancellation, and the issuing of another patent for the same invention.
In testimony whereof, I, Henry Clay, secretary of state of the United States, have hereunto subscribed my name, and caused the seal of the department of state to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of May A. D. 1828, and of the independence of the United States of America, the fifty-second.
[L. S.] H. CLAY.
This patent was returned to the patent office, the seal broken, and now stands cancelled, owing to the defective specification on which it was issued, and another patent granted (with a corrected specification, and for the 28th day of April 1825, bearing date with the first, and for the same invention.
The petition of Joseph Grant, of Providence, in the county of Providence, and state of Rhode Island, hatter, a citizen of the United States of America, respectfully represents, that your petitioner has invented a new and useful improvement in the mode of manufacturing hat bodies by the combination of motions, viz. the rotatory or revolving motion with the vibrating or traverse motion, which forms the two hat bodies by machinery, and crosses the wool from one extremity of the hat bodies to the other at one operation, called 'Grant's improved winding machine for setting up hat bodies,' according to the specification, explanations, and drawings, herewith presented; which the subscriber prays may be taken as a part of his petition—an improvement not used or known before his application, the advantages of which your petitioner is desirous of securing to himself and his legal representatives.
Your petitioner would further state, that he has, heretofore, viz. on the 11th day of August, A.D. 1821, obtained letters patent from the president of the United States for his said improvement, but, owing to a defective specification on which the same were granted, he prays that the said patent may be cancelled, and a new and correct one granted, embracing the same improvements, so far as the same are set forth in the accompanying specification, drawing, and explanations. Your petitioner therefore prays that letters patent of the United States may be issued, granting to your petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Line Materials Co
...in intellectual creation is sound and should be continued as contemplated in the Constitution.' (Id. at p. 9.) 13 In Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 241, 242, 243, 8 L.Ed. 376, Chief Justice Marshall said: 'The law further declares that the patent 'shall be good and available to the grantee o......
-
Hyde Corp. v. Huffines
...application, the file is no longer held in confidence by the patent office but the contents thereof become public property. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 8 L.Ed. 376; Sandlin v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 141 F.2d 660; A. O. Smith Corp. v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. of Ohio, 6 Cir., 73 F.2d 531; 74 F.2......
-
American Refining Co. v. Gasoline Products Co.
...Fed. Cas. No. 2,190; Steam Cutter Co. v. Sheldon, Fed. Cas. No. 13,331; Wilson v. Rosseau, 4 How. 646, 11 L. Ed. 1141; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 8 L. Ed. 376; 30 Cyc. Such examination of the authorities as we have been able to make has led us to the conclusion that, if the combination a......
-
A. F. Stoddard & Co., Ltd. v. Dann
...reflected in the language of 35 U.S.C. §§ 116, 251, and 256 (supra, notes 5 and 7). 9 Chief Justice Marshall, in Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 218, 8 L.Ed. 376 (1832), explained the basic judicial policy of justice and equity which must govern this To promote the progress of useful a......
-
Supreme Court Affirms Federal Circuit Decision In Amgen v. Sanofi
...the advantage for which the privilege is allowed, and is the foundation of the power to issue a patent.'); see also Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 247 (1832) (Marshall, C. J.) ('This is necessary in order to give the public, after the privilege shall expire, the advantage for which the privi......
-
U.S. Supreme Court Affirmed Patent Enablement Requirement In Amgen
...1, Stat. 110. 10 Amgen, 598 U.S. ____, at 8 (citing United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 187 (1933); Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 247 (1832) (Marshall, C. J.); Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 F. Cas. 1120, 1122 (No. 17,600) (CC Mass. 1813) (Story, 11 Id. at 10 (citing O'Reill......
-
It's Time To Change How Antibodies Are Claimed In Patent Strategy
...in this specific area over the last several years-United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 187 (1933), Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 247 (1832); Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 F. Cas. 1120, 1122 (No. 17,600) (CC Mass. 1813); and Prior to the enactment of 35 USC ' 112 and particul......
-
§ 5.03 Analysis of the Act
...or the patent itself. See, e.g., Scharmer v. Carrollton Manufacturing Co, 525 F.2d 95, 99 (6th Cir. 1975) (citing Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218, 242 (1832)). In Kema Inc. v. Kaperwhats, 658 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2009), the court dismissed plaintiff's trade secret claim on the ground p......
-
Tesla, Marconi, and the great radio controversy: awarding patent damages without chilling a defendant's incentive to innovate.
...into the views of the framers of our constitution.... This subject was among the first which followed the organization of our government." 31 U.S. 218, 241-42 (415.) In some cases, as with innovator drug companies, the time and investment is much longer than this. Reza Bagerian, The Preserv......
-
Private Delegation Outside of Executive Supervision.
...because their actions are "related especially to particular individuals and specific litigation"). (210.) See, e.g., Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218, 241 (1832) (opinion of Marshall, C.J.) ("[T]he secretary of state may be considered, in issuing patents, as a ministerial officer. If the prere......
-
The Reexamination Power of Patent Infringers and the Forgotten Inventor
...reexamination characteristics 4 Chief Justice Marshall articulated the contract metaphor of patent law in Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218, 242 (1832). The recognition of a quid pro quo contract between the United States and the inventor continues today. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., v. Pioneer Hi-B......