Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Woodworth v. Wilson

Woodworth v. Wilson, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 712 (1846)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1846-03-18
Topic
general

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The objection taken, that the administrator could not apply for an' extension of the patent granted to Woodworth, his intestate, under the eighteenth section of the patent law, has been disposed of iii the previous case of Wilson a. Rousseau et al., and need not be further noticed. Another objection taken to. the right of . the complainants to maintain the suit is, that Woodworth was not the first and original inventer of the planing-machine, against the using of which the'defendant was enjoined.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Woodworth v. Wilson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Extension Applications An administrator of a patentee's estate may apply for an extension of the patent under the patent law, and such an application is not objectionable on the ground that the administrator lacks authority to seek the extension on the deceased patentee's behalf.
  2. Patent Law — Inventorship Where the evidence produced on the question of inventorship is voluminous, the court will consider all of it and determine whether the weight of the evidence supports the allegation that the patentee was the original inventor of the machine at issue.
  3. Patent Law — Specification Sufficiency A patent specification is not insufficient merely because it does not enable a mechanic of ordinary skill to build the machine, where the proof in the case does not establish that the specification was lacking in fullness and explicitness; such an objection will not support dismissal of the bill.
  4. Patent Law — Joinder of Parties A patentee who retains an interest in an assignment of the exclusive right to use the patented invention may properly be joined as a party complainant with the assignee in a suit to enforce the patent.
  5. Patent Law — Infringement Where the complainant establishes the right to relief and the objections raised against maintenance of the suit afford no sufficient ground for dismissal, a decree dismissing the bill and dissolving the injunction will be reversed, and a perpetual injunction will issue against the infringing defendant.
Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The objection taken, that the administrator could not apply for an' extension of the patent granted to Woodworth, his intestate, under the eighteenth section of the patent law, has been disposed of iii the previous case of Wilson a. Rousseau et al., and need not be further noticed.

Another objection taken to. the right of . the complainants to maintain the suit is, that Woodworth was not the first and original inventer of the planing-machine, against the using of which the'defendant was enjoined.

Without going into the proofs in the .case, which are very voluminous, it will be sufficient to state, that after fully* considering all the evidence produced bearing upon the question, the court is satisfied that the weight of it is decidedly against the objection, and in fajror of .'.the allegation in the bill, that Woodworth was the original inventer of the machine.

It is objected, also, that the specifications accompanying the, patent were not sufficiently full and explicit, so as to enable a mechanic of ordinary skill to build a machine. The court is not satisfied., according to the proof in the case, that the objection is. well founded, and it cannot be relied on as affording sufficient' ground for the dismissal of the bill.

' A further objection was taken, that W. W. Woodworth, one of the complainants, was improperly joined with E.. V. Bunn, the assignee of the exclusive right in Louisville and ten miles around it. - The court is of opinion, that the interest of Woodworth in the assignment, as appears from the record, is sufficient to justify his being made a party jointly with the assignee.

Some other objections were taken to the maintenance of the suit on the argument, which .it is not material to notice particularly; they have all been- considered, and in the judgment of the court afford no sufficient ground for the dismissal of the bill and the dissolving of the injunction.

We think the court erred; and that the decree dismissing the bill, as to the defendant James Wilson, and dissolving the injunction, should be reversed, and that a perpetual injunction should issue.