J. J. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The J. J. Warren Company, the appellant, as assignee of the patentees, filed Its bill to restrain the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 444,642, issued January 13, 1891, to Thomas Gaskell Allen, Jr., William Louis Sachtleben, and John Forrest Walters for “luggage carrier for cycles.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The J. J. Warren Company, the appellant, as assignee of the patentees, filed Its bill to restrain the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 444,642, issued January 13, 1891, to Thomas Gaskell Allen, Jr., William Louis Sachtleben, and John Forrest Walters for “luggage carrier for cycles.” The-answer denied patentable novelty and invention, and asserted that the alleged invention required nothing more than the exercise of mere mechanical skill,, and that the letters patent were invalid.…
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It may be difficult to accurately define the distinction between invention and mechanical skill. Possibly no better definition can be presented than that stated by Justice Matthews in Hollister v. Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 59, 72, 73, 5 Sup. Ct. 717, 724. “Invention,” he says, “is that intuitive faculty of the mind put forth in the search for new results or new methods, creating what had not before existed, or bringing to light what had been hidden from vision.” This is in contradistinction to “the suggestion of that common experience which arose…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Thompson v. BoisselierSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Burt v. EvorySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by7 opinions
- Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Spring-Air Co. v. RagainsDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1951
- Eloesser-Heynemann Co. v. Bayly-Underhill Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1928
- Lettelier v. MannU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1899
- Callison v. BoyleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.