Huber v. N. O. Nelson Manuf'g Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
In Equity. This was a bill filed to restrain the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 260,232, issued June 27, 1882, to Henry Huber, assignee of Peters & Donald, as well as to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 10,826, issued April 19, 1887, to James E. Boyle. Both patents are for improvements in sanitary water-closets.
Read the full summary
In Equity. This was a bill filed to restrain the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 260,232, issued June 27, 1882, to Henry Huber, assignee of Peters & Donald, as well as to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 10,826, issued April 19, 1887, to James E. Boyle. Both patents are for improvements in sanitary water-closets. Huber is owner of patent No. 260,232, and sole licensee under reissued letters patenfr-No. 10,826. Rev. St. U. S. § 4887, provides that— “No person shall be debarred from receiving a patent for his invention or discovery, nor shall any…
1Opinion of the Court
Thayer, ,T.
This case has been elaborately argued. Following the course that was pursued by counsel in the argument, the first question for consideration is whether letters patent No. 260,232, issued to Henry Huber, as assignee of Peters & Donald, are valid. The facts in the light of which that question must be determined are not disputed. Peters & Donald are residents of Great Britain. They secured a patent in England on April 7, 1874, for the same invention covered by American letters patent No. 260,232. On April 7, 1881, the English patent, by virtue of English laws, became null and void,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miller v. Brass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Burr v. DuryeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Gill v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Prouty and Mears v. RUGGLESSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Leggett v. AverySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Louisville Frog, Switch & Signal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934