Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 (1850) analysis

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

[Syllabus]

Patent granted for new and useful improvement on clay/porcelain door or knobs was invalid

The knobs, metallic shank and spoindle, dovetail., nor the mean of fastenening metal shank are new.

The only new aspect, knob made out of clay, but of same form as a metal/wood one. (patented)

Daniel webster approved patent, since they believed it was a new manufacturing process. The applicants admit in proposal they didnt invent clay process, just the idea to do it on door knobs.

oct 1845-Circuit court of Ohio brought action against defendants. Proved process already used in new york, albany, troy, brooklyn, jersey city, philadelphia long before 1841. Also selling similar patented knobs. Change of material does not ensure ingenuity in the other previously ivented processes.

[Justice Nelsons Opinion] The defendants tending to show want in originality, the defendants were shown to hbave infringed on most of their patent except the way to attach a shank and spindle to a clay knob. the plaintiffs challenge since all the processes existed before, change of material is not enough for a patent.

only novelty was clay knob vs. metal. this is cheaper, however by no new process, nor new designs. The difference is formal and destitue of invention.