Goodyear v. Berry
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio
This was a bill in equity, filed [by Henry B. Goodyear, administrator, and Samuel A. Duncan] to restrain the defendant [Archibald Berry] from infringing letters patent [No. 8,075] for an “improvement in the manufacture of India rubber,” granted to Henry B. Goodyear, administrator of Nelson Goodyear, deceased, May 6,1851, and surrendered and reissued May 18, 1858, in two divisions, numbered 556 and 557, respectively.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in equity, filed [by Henry B. Goodyear, administrator, and Samuel A. Duncan] to restrain the defendant [Archibald Berry] from infringing letters patent [No. 8,075] for an “improvement in the manufacture of India rubber,” granted to Henry B. Goodyear, administrator of Nelson Goodyear, deceased, May 6,1851, and surrendered and reissued May 18, 1858, in two divisions, numbered 556 and 557, respectively. The claim of the original patent was as follows: “What I do claim, etc., is the combining of India rubber and sulphur, either with or without shellac, for making a hard and…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The bill alleges an infringement, by the defendant of two reissued patents to Henry B. Goodyear, as administrator of Nelson Goodyear, dated. May 18, 1858, for an improvement in making hard rubber or vulcanite. These reissued patents were extended for seven years from May 6, 1865. The infringement charged consists in the use of hard rubber by the defendant as plates for the insertion of artificial teeth. The bill prays for an injunction and an account of profits. The history of the invention covered by complainant’s patent is briefly this: In June, 1844, Charles Goodyear…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Judge v. KribsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887