McCarty v. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL' FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two letters patent issued to McCarty for improvements in car trucks, viz.: Patent No. 314,459, dated March 24, 1885, and patent No. 339,913, dated April 13, 1886. The application for the first patent was filed June 5, 1884, and for the second patent, August 31, 1883, so that in reality the second patent represents the prior…
Read the full summary
APPEAL' FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two letters patent issued to McCarty for improvements in car trucks, viz.: Patent No. 314,459, dated March 24, 1885, and patent No. 339,913, dated April 13, 1886. The application for the first patent was filed June 5, 1884, and for the second patent, August 31, 1883, so that in reality the second patent represents the prior invention. Upon the hearing in this court, complainants abandoned their claims under the first patent, No. 314,459, and asked for…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brown
The specification of the patent in this case does not, as specifications ordinarily do, state the peculiar functions of the patented device, the defects it is designed to remedy, or the features that distinguish it from other similar devices. This dmission, however, is supplied by the testimony, which shows that the invention was due to the frequent breaking of wooden bolsters, of the form in common use, in what were termed the “ diamond truck,” and other forms of car trucks. After some fruitless experiments, McCarty conceived the idea of using two iron plates, thereby forming a strong…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by147 opinions
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.