Mahn v. Harwood
United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
16 F. Cas. 494 (1878)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Louis Mahn (plaintiff) owned two patents, which were issued in 1872 and 1876, for double-covered baseballs and other balls. The purpose of the double covering was to improve the ball’s durability, which became desirable as the way of playing baseball evolved. Mahn sued Harrison Harwood (defendant), a manufacturer of balls with two leather coverings, for patent infringement. Harwood argued that Mahn’s patent was not valid because Harwood and others manufactured and used double-covered balls even before the 1872 patent was issued and thus Mahn’s patent did not involve a novel idea. In response, Mahn sought to limit the patent claims to baseballs used by clubs in an established association—that is, balls made of yarn, with a cork or rubber interior, and bearing two leather covers. However, there was no claim or evidence that this kind of ball brought about a new or different effect. Harwood argued that the patent should not be so limited, and, even if it were limited, the claimed invention was not novel.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lowell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
