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. The court ruled that, while the improvement was useful, it was not novel enough to be a patent.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - 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. The court ruled that, while the improvement was useful, it was not novel enough to be a patent. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
JoinMajority
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co., (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Mfg. Co. (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - 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. The court ruled that, while the improvement was useful, it was not novel enough to be a patent. (en)
|
ArgueDateA
| |
ArgueDateB
| |
googlescholar
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |