Hotchkiss Knobs: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) 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..." |
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD | HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD | ||
Background | |||
- USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing, | |||
- 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 | ||
• 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 | ||
• Method of linking two and making out of clay was not beyond the scope of a typical mechanic in the field | |||
• Had example of machine being replaced in a few areas with new materials – can’t be considered a new machine | |||
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 | |||
Revision as of 23:02, 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
