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

Woodward Company v. Hurd

• 1913 • 232 U.S. 428 • White Court
In the 1913 case of Woodward Company v. Hurd, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The Woodward Company claimed that Mr. Hurd had infringed upon their patented design for an electrical switchboard apparatus and sought damages as well as an injunction to prevent further infringement. However, Mr. Hurd argued that he was not infringing on any valid patent because the original inventor of the device in question had sold it without applying for a patent first,...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: 1913
Docket: 142
232 U.S. 428
34 S. Ct. 409
58 L. Ed. 670
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1372
Argued: Dec 17, 1913

Woodward Company v. Hurd

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1913 case of Woodward Company v. Hurd, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The Woodward Company claimed that Mr. Hurd had infringed upon their patented design for an electrical switchboard apparatus and sought damages as well as an injunction to prevent further infringement. However, Mr. Hurd argued that he was not infringing on any valid patent because the original inventor of the device in question had sold it without applying for a patent first, thus placing it into public domain before Woodward obtained its own patents. The court ruled in favor of Mr.Hurd stating that once an invention is sold or used publicly without being protected by a patent, it becomes part of public domain and cannot be later patented by someone else; even if they were unaware at time of application about prior use or sale.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Woodward Company v. Hurd, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contract between two parties despite one party's misrepresentation of facts contradicted established legal principles. The dissent contended that if a party is induced into entering an agreement based on false information provided by another party, then such a contract should be deemed voidable at the option of the deceived party. In this case, Woodward Company had been misled about certain patent rights which formed part of their contractual obligations with Hurd. The dissenting justices believed that since these misrepresented facts were material to Woodward’s decision to enter into the contract and they relied upon them in good faith, they should have had every right to rescind or avoid fulfilling those obligations without penalty once discovering this deception.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(1)
Decided: Feb 24, 1914
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