Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U.S. 415 (1936)
Linked as:
Text
U.S. Supreme Court BASSICK MFG. CO. v. R. M. HOLLINGSHEAD CO., 298 U.S. 415 (1936)
[Page 298 U.S. 415, 416]
Mr. Lynn A. Williams, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner in No. 23 and respondent in No. 31.
Messrs. L onard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa., and W. G. Doolittle, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioners in No. 31.
Messrs. Frank S. Busser and Leonard L. Kalish, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent in No. 23.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these cases writs of certiorari were granted (295 U.S. 726, 55 S. Ct. 833; 295 U.S. 726, 55 S.Ct. 835) to resolve conflicts with respect to the scope and alleged infringement of claims 1 to 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 of the Gullborg patent, No. 1,307,734. In No. 23 the Circuit Court of Appeals, while holding the claims valid, so construed them as to exculpate the accused devices from the charge of contributory infringement. [Footnote 1] In No. 31 the Circuit Court of Appeals gave the claims a broader construction and adjudged that the petitioners were guilty of contributory infringement. [Footnote 2]
The subject of the patent is a device for lubricating metal bearings, particularly those of automobiles. It has occasioned much litigation. [Footnote 3] Before the date of Gull-
[Page 298 U.S. 415, 425]
claimed in his patent or unpatented and old in the art. Claims 14 and 15. The question then is whether, by this method, the patentee, by improving one element of an old combination whose construction and operating is otherwise unchanged, may, in effect, repatent the old combination by reclaiming it with the improved element substituted for the old element. That this cannot be done is known by numerous cases in this and other federal courts. [Footnote 4]
[Page 298 U.S. 415, 426]
In No. 23 the decree is affirmed. In No. 31 the decree is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
So ordered.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. Footnotes
Footnote 1 Hollingshead Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co., 73 F.(2d) 543.
Footnote 2 Rogers v. Alemite Corporation, 74 F.(2d) 1019.
Footnote 3 Many district court decisions are unreported. Reported decisions in district and circuit courts of appeal are: Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Auto Equipment Co. (C.C.A.) 13 F.(2d) 463; Lyman Mfg. Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co. ( C.C.A.) 18 F. (2d) 29; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Standard Products Mfg. Co. et al. (D.C.) 19 F.(2d) 937; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Larkin Automotive Parts Co. et al. (D.C.) 19 F.(2d) 939; Larkin Automotive Parts Co. et al. v. Bassick Mfg. Co. (C.C.A.) 19 F.(2d) 944; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., Inc. (D.C.) 22 F.(2d) 331; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. C. P. Rogers & Co. (D.C.) 26 F.(2d) 724; Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Hi-Pressure Sales Co., Inc. (D. C.) 33 F.(2d) 912; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corporation (D.C.) 39 F.(2d) 904; Id. (C.C.A.) 52 F. (2d) 36; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. United Grease Gun Corporation (D.C.) 40 F.(2d) 549; Alemite Corporation v. Lubrair Corporation (C.C.A.) 62 F.(2d) 899.
Footnote 4 Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, P. & H. Co. (C.C.A.) 101 F. 831; Heald v. Rice, , 755; Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224, 227, 229 S., 13 S.Ct. 854; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapper Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425, 431, 432 S., 14 S.Ct. 627; Carbice Corporation v. American Patents Development Corporation, 283 U.S. 27, 31, 32 S., 51 S.Ct. 334; Wagner Typewriter Co. v. F. S. Webster Co. (C.C.) 144 F. 405, 409; Langan v. Warren Axe & Tool Co. (C.C.A.) 184 F. 720; Harvey Hubbell, Inc., v. General Electric Co. (C.C.A.) 267 F. 564; Troy Wagon Works Co. v. Ohio Trailer Co. (C.C.A.) 274 F. 612; General Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co. (C. C.A.) 277 F. 917; Radio Corporation v. Lord (C.C.A.) 28 F. (2d) 257; Wall Pump & C. Co. v. Gardner Governor Co. (C.C.A.) 28 F.(2d) 334.
Sponsored links
