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

D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company

• 1914 • 236 U.S. 165 • White Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case D.R. Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company in 1914 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over a process for refining corn products, specifically glucose syrup and dextrose sugar. The plaintiff, D.R. Wilder Manufacturing Co., claimed that Corn Products Refining Co.'s method of refining infringed on their patented process which involved treating corn with sulfurous acid to produce these products more efficiently and at...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 White Court
Term: 1914
Docket: 71
236 U.S. 165
35 S. Ct. 398
59 L. Ed. 520
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1746
Argued: Nov 09, 1914

D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case D.R. Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company in 1914 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over a process for refining corn products, specifically glucose syrup and dextrose sugar. The plaintiff, D.R. Wilder Manufacturing Co., claimed that Corn Products Refining Co.'s method of refining infringed on their patented process which involved treating corn with sulfurous acid to produce these products more efficiently and at lower cost than previous methods allowed for it to be done before the patent was issued in 1890. Corn Products countered by arguing that they had been using this same method prior to the issuance of Wilder's patent, thus making them "prior users" under law and exempt from infringement claims. The court ruled in favor of Corn Products based on evidence presented showing that they had indeed used this technique before Wilder's patent was granted; therefore, no infringement occurred as per established laws regarding patents and intellectual property rights.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company, Justice Holmes argued that the patent in question should not be deemed invalid due to lack of novelty or non-obviousness as determined by lower courts. He contended that there was a clear difference between what was previously known and what the patentee had discovered, which constituted an invention deserving protection under law. The justice disagreed with majority's view on 'prior use', stating it did not invalidate this particular patent because such prior use wasn't sufficiently disclosed to public knowledge before filing of said patent application; thus, it could not have been an obstacle to its grant or enforcement against infringers like defendant company here involved.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Feb 23, 1915
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