Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully
144 U.S. 238 (1892)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully , 144 U.S. 238 (1892)

Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully (No. 2)

No. 206

Argued March 10-11, 1892

Decided April 4, 1892

144 U.S. 238

Syllabus

Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully, ante,144 U. S. 224, applied to this case so far as the plaintiff claims to recover for a violation of a contract.

Letters patent No. 262,280, Claims 1 and 2, issued January 10, 1882, to Curtis

Page 144 U. S. 239

H. Veeder for "a seat for bicycles," when properly construed, is not infringed by the defendant's Champion saddle.

Letters patent No. 197,289, Claim 2, issued November 20, 1877, to A. L., G. M., and O. E. Peters for an anti-friction journal box, are void for want of novelty.

Letters patent No. 245,542, issued August 9, 1881, to Thomas W. Moran for velocipedes, if it involves any invention, is void for want of novelty in the alleged invention protected by them.

Claims 1 and 3 in letters patent No. 310,776, issued January 13, 1885, to William P. Benham for improvements in velocipedes are void for want of novelty in the alleged invention protected by them.

The second and third claims in letters patent No. 323,162, issued July 28, 1885, to Emmit G. Latta for a mode of protecting the pedals of a velocipede with India-rubber, are void for want of invention, as it is clear that the coating of pedals to prevent slipping being conceded to be old, the particular shape in which they may be made is a mere matter of taste or mechanical skill.

The Court stated the case as follows:

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of eight patents granted to different parties for devices used in the manufacture of bicycles and velocipedes. Upon a hearing in the court below, the bill was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed to this Court. 34 F. 885.

The assignment of errors covers only five patents:

1. Patent No. 252,280, issued January 10, 1882, to Curtis H. Veeder, for "a seat for bicycles," which the court below held to be limited by previous patents to Lamplugh and Brown, to Shire, and to Fowler, and, as so limited, not to have been infringed by the defendants.

2. Patent No. 197,289, issued November 20, 1877, to A. L., G. M., and O. E. Peters, for an anti-friction journal-box, which was held to be anticipated, and, if not anticipated, not to have been infringed.

3. Patent No. 245,542, issued August 9, 1881, to Thomas W. Moran, for handles for velocipedes, which the court held did not involve invention, and was void.

4. Patent No. 310,776, issued January 13, 1885, to William P. Benham, for improvements in velocipedes, which the court held had not been infringed by the defendants.

Page 144 U. S. 240

5. Patent No. 323, 162, issued July 28, 1885, to Emmit G. Latta, for an improvement in velocipedes, which the court, in view of the state of the art, held to be void for want of novelty.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.