Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/148/270/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/148/270/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Co., 148 U.S. 270 (1893)
Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Company
No. 143
Argued March 16-17, 1893
Decided March 27, 1893
148 U.S. 270
Syllabus
Letters patent No. 260,232, granted June 27, 1882, to Henry Huber, as assignee of Stewart Peters and William Donald, of Glasgow, Scotland, for an "improvement in water closets," the patent expressing on its face that it was "subject to the limitation prescribed by § 4887, Rev.Stat., by reason of English patent dated April 7, 1874, No. 1207," are void because the English patent had expired April 7, 1881.
Reissued letters patent No. 10,86, granted to James E. Boyle, April 19, 1887, for an improvement in flushing apparatus for water closets, on the reissue of original patent No. 291,139, granted to Boyle January 1, 1884, the application for the reissue having been filed January 2, 1885, are void, as to claims 1 and 2 of the reissue.
Every claim of the original patent contained as an element a flushing chamber, and no claim of the reissue which leaves out a flushing chamber can be construed as valid.
There is new matter in the reissue specification inserted to lay a foundation for the expanded claims in the reissue.
There is nothing in the original patent which suggests the possibility that Boyle's invention could be operated by a combination which omitted the flushing chamber as an element thereof.
In equity to prevent the infringement of letters patent and for damages for such infringement. Decree dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiffs appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.
