Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Dable Grain Shovel Company v. Flint

• 1890 • 137 U.S. 41 • Fuller Court
In the case of Dable Grain Shovel Company v. Flint in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an improvement on grain shovels was valid or not. The plaintiff, Dable Grain Shovel Company, held a patent for a particular design of grain shovel and accused the defendant, Flint, of infringing upon this patent by manufacturing similar shovels without permission. However, Flint argued that the patented design was simply an obvious modification to existing designs...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1890
Docket: 1213
137 U.S. 41
11 S. Ct. 8
34 L. Ed. 618
1890 U.S. LEXIS 2060

Dable Grain Shovel Company v. Flint

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Dable Grain Shovel Company v. Flint in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an improvement on grain shovels was valid or not. The plaintiff, Dable Grain Shovel Company, held a patent for a particular design of grain shovel and accused the defendant, Flint, of infringing upon this patent by manufacturing similar shovels without permission. However, Flint argued that the patented design was simply an obvious modification to existing designs and therefore should not have been granted protection under patent law. The court sided with Flint in its decision stating that while there were indeed differences between Dable's shovel and previous models; these changes were minor improvements rather than significant innovations deserving of a new patent. The court emphasized that patents are meant to protect truly novel inventions rather than slight modifications or enhancements to existing products. This ruling set precedent emphasizing strict interpretation when it comes to what constitutes as "novelty" under U.S Patent Law - reinforcing that only substantial innovation is worthy of such protections.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Dable Grain Shovel Company v. Flint, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim against Dable Grain Shovel Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the patent in question did not meet the necessary criteria of novelty and non-obviousness required for a valid patent under U.S law. They contended that there were prior examples of similar grain shovel designs predating Flint’s patented design, which should have invalidated his claim to originality and invention. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an 'improvement' in relation to patents, arguing that merely changing materials or proportions does not necessarily constitute an improvement if it doesn't enhance functionality or efficiency significantly enough to be considered novel or non-obvious by someone skilled in relevant art field.

Opinion written by Justice HGray
Decided: Nov 03, 1890
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms