Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP MASSACHUSETTS. This was a suit brought by the appellants, John J. Manning and Caleb J. Norwood, to restrain the infringement by the appellees of letters patent dated January 7th, 1873, issued to the appellants and W. N. Manning, as assignees of the inventor, James Manning. By the subsequent assignment of W. N. Manning the appellants became vested with the title to the entire patent.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP MASSACHUSETTS. This was a suit brought by the appellants, John J. Manning and Caleb J. Norwood, to restrain the infringement by the appellees of letters patent dated January 7th, 1873, issued to the appellants and W. N. Manning, as assignees of the inventor, James Manning. By the subsequent assignment of W. N. Manning the appellants became vested with the title to the entire patent. It is well known that the swimming-bladders or sounds of certain fishes are largely composed of that variety of gelatin called isinglass. ■,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Woods
We think that the defence, that the improvement described in the patent had been in public use for more than two years prior to the application therefor, is established by the testimony.
The appellants contend that the patent covers an improvement in the process of making isinglass. It is not contended that the patent covers the rolls between which the fish-sounds are passed, or the keeping of the rolls cool by making them hollow and injecting a stream of cold water into the cavity, nor the automatic scrapers, but in the use of automatic scrapers applied to such rolls to prevent the isinglass…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- McCLURG v. KINGSLANDSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Worley v. Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
3Cited by18 opinions
- Electric Storage Battery Co. v. ShimadzuSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- In re DybelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- William R. Watts v. The University of Delaware, an Agency of the State of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Smith & Davis Manuf'g Co. v. MellonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- American Bell Tel. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1895
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.