Thomson v. Wooster
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL .FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The ‘appellee in this case, who was complainant' below, filed his bill against the appellants, complaining that they infringed certain letters patent for an improved folding guide for sewing machines, grafted to one Alexander Douglass, of which the complainant was the assignee.
Read the full summary
APPEAL .FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The ‘appellee in this case, who was complainant' below, filed his bill against the appellants, complaining that they infringed certain letters patent for an improved folding guide for sewing machines, grafted to one Alexander Douglass, of which the complainant was the assignee. The patent was dated October 5, 1858, was.extended for seven years in 1872, and was reissued in December, 1872. The suit was brought on the reissued patent, a copy of Avhich aves annexed to the bill, Arhich contained allegations…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beadley
After stating the facts in the foregoing language, he continued :
The appellants have assigned fourteen' reasons or grounds for reversing the decree. The first nine relate to .the taking of the account before the master and his report thereon; the last five relate to the validity of the letters patent on which the suit was brought. It will be convenient to consider the last reasons first.
The bill, as we have seen, was taken pro eonfesso, and a decree pro eonfesso was regularly entered up, declaring that the letters patent were valid, that Douglass was the original inventor of the invéntion…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- O'Hara v. MacConnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Cawood PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Rose v. WoodruffNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Read v. ConsequaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by305 opinions
- Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd. v. Houston National Bank, Defendant-Third Party v. Jack D. Baize, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Comdyne I, Inc. v. CorbinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Ryan v. Homecomings Financial NetworkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
- Curtis B. Danning, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Fenton, Lavine & Co., a Partnership v. Beau Berlinski LavineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
300 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.