Legal Opinion
Guthrie v. Curlett
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 1, 1926No. 190PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). While not disagreeing with the court below in its estimate of Bur-ford’s earlier achievement, we shall affirm the result because of lack of patentable subject matter. >
A patentee, to merit a patent, must disclose a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Plainly there is before us neither a machine nor a composition of matter; the latter, if for no other reason than that no claim is made therefor. Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224, 13 S. Ct. 854, 37 L. Ed. 710.
Consequently this patent is for either a manufacture or an art, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Underwood v. GerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
- International Mausoleum Co. v. SievertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. PopeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- Berardini v. TocciU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Ip Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- In Re ReevesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- In Re RussellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In Re BolongaroCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
- Flint v. G. R. Leonard & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.