Printed Publication Case - Adam Mahood: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) |
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
** During testimony, the defense presented a picture in a volume of the New York Coach-Makers' Magazine, and particularly the January, 1864 volume | ** During testimony, the defense presented a picture in a volume of the New York Coach-Makers' Magazine, and particularly the January, 1864 volume | ||
that showed a similar set up with the footrests attached to the seat below the axle very similar to the Putnam invention. | that showed a similar set up with the footrests attached to the seat below the axle very similar to the Putnam invention. | ||
** This went to show that the cart design covered by the patent were in use long before the 1880 granting of the Putnam patent. | ** This went to show that the cart design covered by the patent were in use long before the 1880 granting of the Putnam patent. | ||
** Putnam tried to contend that these were not publications in the sense the patent law meant it, but there was no way to draw distinctions between "different types of publications in the eyes of the law." | ** Putnam tried to contend that these were not publications in the sense the patent law meant it, but there was no way to draw distinctions between "different types of publications in the eyes of the law." | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 23 March 2011
Background of the Case
- Truman v. Cargill Manufacturing Co.
- California Federal Circuit Court
- De Witt Putnam, working for the Truman company got a patent on September 14, 1880 for the exclusive right to making a horse carriage with feet straps connecting directly to the seat, for the coverage of San Francisco County alone.
- It would appear that ostensibly, this set up would elminiate unwanted jostling of the rider by allowing the feet and seat to move in unison, not separately.
- Putnam's company in 1893 asked the defendant to produce around 125 carts according to the patent, but when finished would only receive around half of the order.
- The defendant then sold the rest of the unreceived order in the county covered by the patent.
- Truman subsequently sued for infringement.
- There were several differing district cases regarding this issue that needed to be resolved so it was reviewed by the Federal Court.
Opinion and Holding
- Opinion
- During testimony, the defense presented a picture in a volume of the New York Coach-Makers' Magazine, and particularly the January, 1864 volume
that showed a similar set up with the footrests attached to the seat below the axle very similar to the Putnam invention.
- This went to show that the cart design covered by the patent were in use long before the 1880 granting of the Putnam patent.
- Putnam tried to contend that these were not publications in the sense the patent law meant it, but there was no way to draw distinctions between "different types of publications in the eyes of the law."
- The court ruled that it past the most rigid test for prior publications that existed at that time, as “It appears that [the magazines] were published, copyrighted, and in general circulation."
- Librarians also testified that they had been available in their libraries for a number of years.
- Lastly, several skilled cart makers also testified that they had been making carts based on the published designs for quite some time.
