Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works
Decision Date | 29 October 1883 |
Citation | 27 L.Ed. 862,3 S.Ct. 61,109 U.S. 75 |
Parties | OLIVER and others v. RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS, for the use, etc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On the ninth of June, 1868, reissued letters patent No. 2,979 were granted to the Rumford Chemical Works, a corporation of Rhode Island, for an 'improvement in pulverulent acid for use in the preparation of soda powders, farinaceous food, and for other purposes.' The original patent, No. 14,722, was granted to Eben Norton Horsford, April 22, 1865, for 14 years, for an 'improvement in preparing phosphoric acid as a substitute for other solid acids,' and was reissued to the Rumford Chemical Works, as No. 2,597, May 7, 1867, for an 'improvement in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and phosphates for the use in the preparation of food, and for other purposes.'
The specification of reissue No. 2,979 sets forth the mode of preparing the acid, which is a dry pulverulent acid, described as having the capacity of being intimately mixed with dry alkaline carbonates, or other sensitive chemical compounds, without decomposing them or entering into combination with them, except upon the addition of moisture or the application of artificial heat. It says:
The claims of reissue No. 2,979 are four in number, as follows:
On the first of February, 1869, the following instrument in writing was executed and delivered by the Rumford Chemical Works to one Allen F. Morgan:
'To all people to whom these presents shall come, the Rumford Chemical Works, a corporation transacting business in East Providence, in the state of Rhode Island, sends greeting: Know ye that the said corporation, in consideration of the agreement, of even date herewith, entered into between it and Allen F. Mor- gan, of Memphis, in the county of Shelby and state of Tennessee, does hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto the said Allen F. Morgan the right to use, within the territory described in said agreement, Horsford's patent cream of tartar substitute, for the purpose of manufacturing within said territory self-raising cereal flours, with the right to use and sell the flours so manufactured; to have and hold and exercise such rights within the limits aforesaid, for and during the time, and under and subject to the conditions and limitations, named and specified in the agreement aforesaid, of even date herewith, to which reference is hereby made as a part hereof.'
On the same day Morgan executed and delivered to the Rumford Chemical Works the following instrument in writing:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier
...the earlier cases of Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 14 How. 193, 55 U.S. 193, 216, 14 L.Ed. 383, and Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U.S. 75, 82, 3 S.Ct. 61, 27 L.Ed. 862. The statement in the Troy case, however, was not necessary to the decision, and in Oliver v. Rumford Chemic......
-
In re Supernatural Foods, LLC
...by him to another.95 This language was used as a basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Oliver v. Rumford Chem. Works.96 In Rumford Chemical, the Rumford Chemical Works ("Rumford") obtained a patent for an improvement in the preparation of certain acids and phosphates used in food prepar......
-
CFLC, Inc., In re
...of the federal rule, Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 193, 14 L.Ed. 383 (1852), Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U.S. 75, 3 S.Ct. 61, 27 L.Ed. 862 (1883), and Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U.S. 226, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 369 (1886), those questions are not so significant......
-
Hartman v. John D. Park & Sons Co.
... ... market any one may, if he can by chemical analysis and a ... series of experiments or by any other use of the ... Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How.(U.S.) 477, ... 13 L.Ed. 504; Oliver v. Chemical Works, 109 U.S. 75, ... 3 Sup.Ct. 61, 27 L.Ed. 862; Rob ... ...
-
Chapter V Intellectual Property Problems
...Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 55 U.S. 193, 14 How. 193, 14 L.Ed. 383, 1852 WL 6762 (1852).[22] Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U.S. 75, 83, 3 S.Ct. 61, 27 L.Ed. 862 (1883).[23] Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U.S. 226, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 369 (1886).[24] In re CFLC Inc., 89 F.3d 673, ......