1885 United States Supreme Court case
Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. |
---|
|
Argued November 11–12, 1884 Decided January 5, 1885 |
---|
Full case name | Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. |
---|
Citations | 113 U.S. 59 (more) 5 S. Ct. 717; 28 L. Ed. 901; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1651 |
---|
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- Morrison Waite
- Associate Justices
- Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan William B. Woods · Stanley Matthews Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford |
Case opinion |
---|
Majority | Matthews, joined by unanimous |
---|
Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 59 (1885), was an American bill regarding alleged infringement on a patent issued to Edward A. Locke for specific improvements in identifying revenue marks. The defendants, Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Company of Waterbury, were assignees of the patentee, and the plaintiff was the collector of internal revenue for the Second collection district of Connecticut.[1] The court ruled that, while the improvement was useful, it was not novel enough to be a patent.
Background
The patent was for a device that was designed specifically for sealing liquor casks with identifying marks or labels for tax purposes and for identifying the contents of the cask, and any other pertitent information. It was designed so that the marks and labels could not be fraudulently removed. There were two pieces, one to be retained by the government, the other meant to stay affixed to the cask.
In 1875 new regulations in regard to the use of tax-paid stamps, by which a portion of the stamp is cut out at the time of dumping and returned with the gauger's report, was adopted. This method effectually destroys the stamp and prevents its reuse, while, at the same time, a sufficient mount of the engraving is shown upon the slip to determine whether the stamp is genuine. It was believed that this system afforded the government an effective means of protection against fraud in connection with the collection of distilled spirit taxes.
Decision
The court observed that while there was an increased utility beyond previous devices, there was no observable change in the character of the stamp, the identifying marks, nor the purpose of destroying the stamp while retaining the evidence of the stamp's purpose and "seems to us not to spring from that intuitive faculty of the mind put forth in the search for new results or new methods, creating what had not before existed, or bringing to light what lay hidden from vision; but, on the other hand, to be the suggestion of that common experience which arose spontaneously, and by a necessity of human reasoning, in the minds of those who had become acquainted with the circumstances with which they had to deal."
"Cutting out a portion of the stamp, as a means of defacing and mutilating it so as to prevent a second use, was matter of common knowledge and practice before the date of this patent; and cutting out a particular portion on which the identifying marks had been previously written or printed was simply cutting a stub from the stamp instead of cutting the stamp from the stub, as before."
The court mentioned a flaw in the system whereby frauds were committed by the "removal of tax-paid stamps from packages on which they had been originally placed by the officer to others surreptitiously substituted for them, or by emptying the packages of their original contents and fraudulently refilling them with spirits on which had not been paid, attracted the general attention of the revenue department, the answer to the problem of prevention was found by immediate inference from the existing regulations, in the adoption of the expedient now in question."
"As soon as the mischief became apparent, and the remedy was seriously and systematically studied by those competent to deal with the subject, the present regulation was promptly suggested and adopted; just as a skilled mechanic, witnessing the performance of a machine, inadequate by reason of some defect, to accomplish the object for which it had been designed, by the application of his common knowledge and experience perceives the reason of the failure and supplies what is obviously wanting. It is but the display of the expected skill of the calling, and involves only the exercise of the ordinary faculties of reasoning upon the materials supplied by a special knowledge, and the facility of manipulation which results from its habitual and intelligent practice; and is in no sense the creative work of that inventive faculty which it is the purpose of the constitution and the patent laws to encourage and reward. On this ground the decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree dismissing the bill; and it is so ordered."
See also
References
External links
- Text of Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 59 (1885) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
Enumeration Clause of Section II |
---|
|
|
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III |
---|
|
|
Elections Clause of Section IV |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Dormant Commerce Clause | - Brown v. Maryland (1827)
- Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
- Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
- George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
- Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
- Edwards v. California (1941)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
- National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
- Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
- White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
- Maine v. Taylor (1986)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
- Granholm v. Heald (2005)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
- Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
- National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)
|
---|
Others | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1790 | |
---|
Patent Act of 1793 | |
---|
Patent infringement case law | |
---|
Patentability case law | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1831 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1870 | |
---|
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 | |
---|
International Copyright Act of 1891 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1909 | |
---|
Patent misuse case law | |
---|
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 | |
---|
Lanham Act | - Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
- Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1976 | - Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
- Stewart v. Abend (1990)
- Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
- Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
- Golan v. Holder (2012)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
- Allen v. Cooper (2020)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Other copyright cases | |
---|
Other patent cases | - Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
- United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
- United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
- Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
- Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
- Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
- United States v. Adams (1966)
- Brenner v. Manson (1966)
- Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
- Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
- United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
- Dann v. Johnston (1976)
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
- Parker v. Flook (1978)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
- Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
- Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
- LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
- Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
- Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
- Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
- Gunn v. Minton (2013)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
- FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
- Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
|
---|
Other trademark cases | |
---|
|
|
|
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
|
|
Compact Clause of Section X |
---|
|
|