Hotchkiss Knobs: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD • Syllabus ➢ USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing, ➢ Patent for making a knob out of clay ➢ Hotchkiss sued defendant Greenwood for vi..."
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD
'''HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD'''
• Syllabus
 
➢ USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing,
'''Background'''
➢ Patent for making a knob out of clay  
- USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing,
➢ Hotchkiss sued defendant Greenwood for violating patent –pleaded not guilty
- Patent for making a knob out of clay  
• Claimed they weren’t the original inventors
- Hotchkiss sued defendant Greenwood for violating patent –pleaded not guilty
• Had been on sale in a variety of states and venues and foreign country prior to app date – had been made, mfrd, sold and used publicly
  + Claimed they weren’t the original inventors
➢ Apparently patent was overturned and plaintiff wasn’t awarded any damages because it wasn’t novel and non-obvious
  + Had been on sale in a variety of states and venues and foreign country prior to app date – had been made, mfrd, sold and used publicly
• Shank existed
- Apparently patent was overturned and plaintiff wasn’t awarded any damages because it wasn’t novel and non-obvious
• Knob existed
  + Shank existed
• Method of linking two and making out of clay was not beyond the scope of a typical mechanic in the field
  + Knob existed
• Nelson – Op. of Court
  + Method of linking two and making out of clay was not beyond the scope of a typical mechanic in the field
➢ Said the only thing new was the material – material change can’t be patented
 
• Had example of machine being replaced in a few areas with new materials – can’t be considered a new machine
 
➢ Unless fastening the shank to knob of clay required more skill than the metal or wood situation, this did not produce a new and unique effect on the article
Nelson - Op of Court
➢ Judgment upheld
- Said the only thing new was the material – material change can’t be patented
• Woodbury – Dissent
  • Had example of machine being replaced in a few areas with new materials – can’t be considered a new machine
➢ Said dissent primarily as a result of way evidence was submitted
- Unless fastening the shank to knob of clay required more skill than the metal or wood situation, this did not produce a new and unique effect on the article
➢ Thought the material switch made it new and useful and better and cheaper
- Judgment upheld
• Should be patentable
 
➢ Uses a lot of quotes to show that didn’t need to be taken into avvount wheter it was simple or obvious a combination, but if it was indeed an improvement it should be patentable
 
➢ If you use an old principle or law to achieve something new, that method should be patentable
Woodbury - Dissent
• Shows a bunch of examples where precedent shows material subs are patentable
➢ Doesn’t operate to really protect against unfair competition – usually guards against consumer confusion as to source
• “New moe of operating or new composition to produce better results is grounds for a patent
➢ FL law doesn’t really do this, it instead doles out patent rights to the utility and functionality of a non-patented product

Latest revision as of 23:03, 25 January 2011

HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD

Background - USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing, - Patent for making a knob out of clay - Hotchkiss sued defendant Greenwood for violating patent –pleaded not guilty 

  + Claimed they weren’t the original inventors
  + Had been on sale in a variety of states and venues and foreign country prior to app date – had been made, mfrd, sold and used publicly

- Apparently patent was overturned and plaintiff wasn’t awarded any damages because it wasn’t novel and non-obvious 

  + Shank existed
  + Knob existed
  + Method of linking two and making out of clay was not beyond the scope of a typical mechanic in the field


Nelson - Op of Court - Said the only thing new was the material – material change can’t be patented 

  • Had example of machine being replaced in a few areas with new materials – can’t be considered a new machine

- Unless fastening the shank to knob of clay required more skill than the metal or wood situation, this did not produce a new and unique effect on the article - Judgment upheld


Woodbury - Dissent 

➢ Doesn’t operate to really protect against unfair competition – usually guards against consumer confusion as to source
➢ FL law doesn’t really do this, it instead doles out patent rights to the utility and functionality of a non-patented product
Retrieved from "https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Hotchkiss_Knobs&oldid=1168"