Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent No. 655,-402, issued to Joseph G. Hendrickson and Guilliam H. Clamer, for an alloy for anti-friction hearings. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.1
The mere substitution of one material for another is not, as a rule, patentable. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 13 L. Ed. 683. Brown v. District of Columbia, 130 U. S. 87, 9 Sup. Ct. 437, 32 L. Ed. 863. But to this there are exceptions. And, while it may not be possible to define just when it is so, it must be recognized that, under some circumstances, the adaptation of certain materials, singly or in combination, to the production of certain desired results, may amount to invention; and that too, even though it involves no more than the taking advantage of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- H. D. Smith & Co. v. PeckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
- Warren Bros. Co. v. City of OwossoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1925
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.