Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Patent for a combination

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 51 U.S. 329 - James Stimpson v. The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company · 1850Most cited · 22 citing opinions

The patent is for a combination, and the improvement consists in arranging different portions of the plough, and combining them together in the manner stated in the specification, for the purpose of producing a certain effect. None of the parts referred to are new, and none are claimed as new; nor is any portion of the combination less than the whole claimed as new... The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third, which is substantially different in form or in the manner of its arrangement and connection with the others, is therefore not the thing patented. It is not the same combination, if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts.

How often courts cite the case defining “Patent for a combination”

185019001950200020105

Court decisions citing the opinion that defined “Patent for a combination” — 22 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining case as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.