Hotchkiss Knobs

HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD • Syllabus ➢ 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 ➢ Said dissent primarily as a result of way evidence was submitted ➢ Thought the material switch made it new and useful and better and cheaper • 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 • Shows a bunch of examples where precedent shows material subs are patentable • “New moe of operating or new composition to produce better results is grounds for a patent