Cochrane v. Deener (94 U.S. 780)/Dissent Clifford

by Nathan Clifford

United States Supreme Court

94 U.S. 780

Cochrane  v.  Deener

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE STRONG, dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case, for the following reasons:-- 1. Because the mechanical means employed by the respondents to effect the result are substantially different from those described in the complainants' patent.

2. Because the process employed by the respondents to manufacture the described product is materially and substantially different from the patented process employed by the complainants.

3. Because the respondents do not infringe the combination of mechanism patented and employed by the complainants. Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 341; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 428; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 26.

4. Because the respondents do not infringe the process patented by the complainants, the rule being, that a process, like a combination, is an entirety, and that the charge of infringement in such a case is not made out unless it is alleged and proved that the entire process is employed by the respondents. Howe v. Abbott, 2 Story, C. C. 194; Gould v. Rees, 15 Wall. 193.

Notes