Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.
United States Supreme Court
270 U.S. 390 (1926)
Davis-Bournonville Co. (plaintiff) sued Alexander Milburn Co. (defendant) for patent infringement. Whitford invented the improvement claimed in the patent at issue, the application having been filed in March 1911 and issued as a patent in June 1912. As a defense, Alexander Milburn alleged that another inventor, Clifford, had previously invented the improvement claimed in the Whitford patent. Clifford filed a patent application in January 1911, which issued in February 1912, and disclosed, but did not claim, a particular invention. That invention, however, was claimed in the later-filed Whitford patent. The district court and court of appeals both decreed that because Clifford did not claim the invention that was later claimed in the Whitford patent, Clifford was not a prior inventor.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.