US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

POPE MFG. CO. V. GORMULLY , 144 U. S. 248 (1892)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 144 U. S. 248 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully , 144 U.S. 248 (1892)

Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully (No. 3)

No. 207

Argued March 10-11, 1892

Decided April 4, 1892

144 U.S. 248


The monopoly granted by law to a patentee is for one entire thing, and in order to enable an assignee to sue for an infringement, the assignment must convey to him the entire and unqualified monopoly which the patentee holds in the territory specified.

A conveyance by a patentee of all his right, title, and interest in and to the letters patent on velocipedes granted to him, so far as said patent relates to or covers the adjustable hammock seat or saddle, is a mere license.

Claim 1 in letters patent No. 314,142, issued to Thomas J. Kirkpatrick March 17, 1885, for a bicycle saddle, when construed with reference to the previous state of the art, is not infringed by the defendants' saddle.

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two letters patent, namely, No. 216,231, issued to John Shire, June 3, 1879, for an improvement in velocipedes; and, second, patent No. 314, 142, issued March 17, 1885, to Thomas J. Kirkpatrick, for a bicycle saddle.

Both patents were contested by the defendants upon the grounds of their invalidity and noninfringement, and in addition thereto it was insisted that plaintiff had no title to the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 144 U. S. 249

Shire patent. Upon the hearing in the court below, the bill was dismissed, and plaintiff appealed to this Court. 34 F.8d 3.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™