Citation network
Topliff Vs. Topliff
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 1892
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 156 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Topliff v. TopliffSearch
-
U.S. 156 (1892) Topliff v. TopliffSearch
-
The second reissue of that patent is valid whether it be an enlargement of the original patent or not. Miller v. BrassSearch
-
it to the front bolster as well as to the rear axle, it is conceded that it would not, under the cases of Dunbar v. MyersSearch
-
U. S. 187 , 94 U. S. 195 , and Slawson v. GrandSearch
-
we think this reissue is not open to the objections which have proved fatal to so many since the case of Miller v. BrassSearch
-
cases with regard to the validity of reissues. There is no doubt, as was said by this Court in Powder Company v. PowerSearch
-
In the case of Miller v. BrassSearch
-
So, in the case of Johnson v. RailroadSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
granted, and a reissue was applied for after a lapse of fifteen years, and it was held, upon the authority of Miller v. BrassSearch
-
In the case of Mahn v. HarwoodSearch
-
said Mr. Justice Bradley, referring to Miller v. BrassSearch
-
He repeated substantially what had been said in Miller v. BrassSearch
-
with the original patent, and, if necessary, with the record of its inception. In speaking of the case of Miller v. BrassSearch
-
In the large number of cases which have come up to this Court since that of Mahn v. HarwoodSearch
-
original patent which made the reissue operate harshly or unjustly to the defendant in the case. Thus, in Mathews v. MachineSearch
-
in Bantz v. FrantzSearch
-
U. S. 160 , a delay of fourteen years and six months, in Wing v. AnthonySearch
-
in Moffitt v. RogersSearch
-
in Gage v. HerringSearch
-
in Clements v. OdorlessSearch
-
in McMurray v. MallorySearch
-
in White v. DunbarSearch
-
U. S. 47 , of five years. In Parker & Whipple Co. v. YaleSearch
-
the original patent had been brought into use by others than the patentee before the reissue was applied for. In Coon v. WilsonSearch
-
the two patents that the application for a reissue was made merely to enlarge the scope of the original. In Wollensak v. ReiherSearch
-
In the very latest case decided by this Court, viz., Electric Gas-Lighting Co. v. BostonSearch
-
there was a delay of eight and one-half years, and the sole object of the reissue was to expand the claims. In Newton v. FurstSearch
-
thirteen years, and the defendant had begun in the meantime to make machines of the pattern complained of. In Ives v. SargentSearch
-
was infringed by a construction manufactured and sold without infringing the patent as originally granted. In Worden v. SearlsSearch
-
U. S. 14 , there was a delay of six years, and in Matthews v. ManufacturingSearch
-
and interest the assignment was to be void. This vested the real title in the assignee. Waterman v. MackenzieSearch
-
and Surles patent, the master should have reported only nominal damages. It was held by this Court in Story v. LivingstonSearch
-
the report and refer it to the master for review, with liberty to the party to take objection to it. And in McMicken v. PerinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Topliff v. TopliffSearch
-
Miller v. BrassSearch
-
of Dunbar v. MyersSearch
-
and Slawson v. GrandSearch
-
of Miller v. BrassSearch
-
Powder Company v. PowerSearch
-
of Johnson v. RailroadSearch
-
of Mahn v. HarwoodSearch
-
Mathews v. MachineSearch
-
Moffitt v. RogersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial