|
|
Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936)
Bassick Manufacturing Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co. No. 23 Argued October 21, 1936 Decided May 18, 1936 * 298 U.S. 415
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. Claims 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 of Gullborg Patent No. 1,307,734, for a means of lubricating metal bearings, particularly those of automobiles, claimed a combination of (1) a type of pin fitting; (2) a grease gun; (3) a connecting hose, and (4) a type of coupler. The only novel feature of the combination was in the construction of the coupler, which, utilizing a perforated sealing disk mounted to reciprocate in the bore of the coupler with means for yieldingly pressing the disk against the end of the pin fitting, operates upon uncoupling to produce a suction effect which removes excess lubricant from the point of contact of the two members. Held, to that extent, the claims disclose novelty and invention. P. 420.
2. The finding of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the accused grease gun of respondent (in No. 23) lacked the only novel feature of the Gullborg patented combination, and that it therefore did not infringe, sustained. P. 422.
3. Claims 14 and 15 of Gullborg Patent, No. 1,307,734, for a combination of the type of pin fitting covered by Gullborg Patent, No. 1,307,733, with a grease gun of any type, held not contributorily infringed either (1) by the sale of pin fittings of a type not covered by Patent No. 1,307,733, even though a grease gun of the "suction effect" type could be used therewith, or (2) by the sale of grease guns which could be used with the patented pin fitting but which did not embody the improved coupler evidenced by the patent in suit. Pp. 424-425.
4. A patentee cannot, by improving one element of an old combination whose construction and operation is otherwise unchanged, in effect repatent the old combination by reclaiming it with the improved element substituted for the old element. P. 425.
73 F.2d 543 affirmed.
74 F.2d 1019 reversed.
Certiorari, 295 U.S. 726, to review judgments in two cases from different circuits, involving questions of the validity and infringement of a patent. The cases are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936) in 298 U.S. 415 298 U.S. 416. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=T3SMZ3EBDL9VDLP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936), in 298 U.S. 415, page 298 U.S. 416. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=T3SMZ3EBDL9VDLP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936). cited in 1936, 298 U.S. 415, pp.298 U.S. 416. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=T3SMZ3EBDL9VDLP.
|