Hussey v. Bradley
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
This was a bill in equity, filed to restrain the defendants [Christopher C. Bradley and others] from infringing letters patent [No. ■0,227] for an “improvement in reaping machines,” granted to Obed Hussey, August 7, 1847, reissued April 14, 1857, in three divisions, numbered 449. 450, and 451. Reissue 400 was reissued June 21, 1859, in two divisions, numbered 742 and 743. Reissue 743 was reissued February 2S, I860, and numbered 917. The patentee having deceased, reissues No.…
Read the full summary
This was a bill in equity, filed to restrain the defendants [Christopher C. Bradley and others] from infringing letters patent [No. ■0,227] for an “improvement in reaping machines,” granted to Obed Hussey, August 7, 1847, reissued April 14, 1857, in three divisions, numbered 449. 450, and 451. Reissue 400 was reissued June 21, 1859, in two divisions, numbered 742 and 743. Reissue 743 was reissued February 2S, I860, and numbered 917. The patentee having deceased, reissues No. 449, 451, 742, and 917 were extended to complainant [Eunice B. Hussey] for seven years from August 7, 1861. fine…
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge.
We cau discover no just ground for maintaining that the reissued patent No. 449, of April 14th, 1857, was not proper as a reissue of the original patent of August 7th, 1847, if the patentee was the original and first inventor of the combination therein claimed, and if his rights had not been forfeited or destroyed by the lapse of time between the issue of the first patent and this reissue.
The same remark might, perhaps, have been applied, without further discussion, to the reissues No. 742, of June 21st, 1859, and No. 917, of February 28th, 1860, had not these last…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gunther v. Liverpool, London & Globe Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1882
- Baker v. HowellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska · 1890