Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus
105 U.S. 94
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1882-03-18
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Woods, after stating the case, delivered the opinión of the court. A comparison of' the drawing which is appended to- patent No.' 8814, with cut No¡ 34 of the Holthaus Circular,- which it is admitted represents show-cases manufactured and sold by the defendants, during and since January, 1877, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of the former, excepting a slight inclination backwards, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, of the glass constituting the 'front of the elevated portions of the case; We think, therefore, that the infringement is clearly eátablished. The attempt to prove that the complainants were not the first- inventors of the design covered by their- letters-patent has entirely failed. The only evidence -offered on this branch of the defence are the - publications designated.' as Maws’ Price Current and the Wiegal, Catalogue.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 107 opinions
Headnotes
- Patent Law — Design Patents Infringement of a design patent is established where the accused design is a servile copy of the patented design, even if the accused design includes slight variations that are hardly perceptible to the naked eye.
- Patent Law — Design Patents A design patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and these presumptions stand unless rebutted by evidence showing anticipation of the design. Evidence of prior publications that do not disclose any design remotely resembling the patented design fails to rebut these presumptions.
- Patent Law — Design Patents Infringement of a design patent by a defendant is sufficient to establish the patent's utility as against that defendant. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. Pat. Rep. 207
after stating the case, delivered the opinión of the court.
A comparison of' the drawing which is appended to- patent No.' 8814, with cut No¡ 34 of the Holthaus Circular,- which it is admitted represents show-cases manufactured and sold by the defendants, during and since January, 1877, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of the former, excepting a slight inclination backwards, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, of the glass constituting the 'front of the elevated portions of the case; We think, therefore, that the infringement is clearly eátablished.
The attempt to prove that the complainants were not the first- inventors of the design covered by their- letters-patent has entirely failed. The only evidence -offered on this branch of the defence are the - publications designated.' as Maws’ Price Current and the Wiegal, Catalogue. The first of these bears date-in 1869, and the latter in 1872. After a.careful search through both, we have been unable to- find any design for a-show'-casé which remotely resembles that described in. the complainants’ patent.
The design patented by the complainants differs essentially from any other which has -been callea to our attention. It is not covered by the other patents which are set out in the record. Whether it is more graceful or beautiful than older designs is not- for us to decide. It is sufficient if it is new and useful.
The patent is prima facie evidence of both novelty and utility, and neither of these presumptions has been- rebutted by the evidence. On the contrary, they are strengthened. No anticipation of; the design is shown, although the attempt hás been made to prove, anticipation. The fact that it has been *97 infringed by defendants, is sufficient to establish’its utility, at least as against them. Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. Pat. Rep. 207.
' Our .conclusion is that the complainants have a valid patent which the..defendantschave infringed. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing their bill must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion ; and it is
So ordered.
Me. Justice Geay did. not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it.