Difference between revisions of "EB: EGBERT v. LIPPMANN, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==The Situation== Samuel Barnes invented an "improvement in corset-springs," and filed for a patent in March 1866 Egbert is the assignee of the patent Frances Barnes was granted ...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==The Situation==
 
==The Situation==
Samuel Barnes invented an "improvement in corset-springs," and filed for a patent in March 1866
+
*Samuel Barnes invented an "improvement in corset-springs," and filed for a patent in March 1866
Egbert is the assignee of the patent
+
*Egbert is the assignee of the patent
Frances Barnes was granted a reissue of the patent in Samuels place (death?)
+
*Frances Barnes was granted a reissue of the patent in Samuels place (death?)
  
 
==Accusation==
 
==Accusation==
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
==Reasoning==
 
==Reasoning==
The Act of 1939 renders patents invalid if they were in public use, with the consent and allowance of the inventor for more than two years prior to the application.
+
*The Act of 1939 renders patents invalid if they were in public use, with the consent and allowance of the inventor for more than two years prior to the application.
  
Evidence:
+
*Evidence:
S. Barnes had given the corset to Frances sometime between January and May 1855, and she used it for a long time, and got another pair from him in 1858.
+
**S. Barnes had given the corset to Frances sometime between January and May 1855, and she used it for a long time, and got another pair from him in 1858.
Barnes also showed the invention to Joseph Sturgis in 1863, showing him how it was made and used.
+
**Barnes also showed the invention to Joseph Sturgis in 1863, showing him how it was made and used.
  
Ruling:
+
*Ruling:
Even though Barnes only gave the invention to one person, he allowed them to use it without limitation or restriction - this qualifies as public use (number of people doesn't matter).
+
**Even though Barnes only gave the invention to one person, he allowed them to use it without limitation or restriction - this qualifies as public use (number of people doesn't matter).
Barnes applied no restriction and implied no secrecy in giving his invention to Frances = public
+
**Barnes applied no restriction and implied no secrecy in giving his invention to Frances = public
The use of the invention was not for experimental purposes = public
+
**The use of the invention was not for experimental purposes = public
  
 
==Dissenting Opinion==
 
==Dissenting Opinion==
Barnes giving private use of his invention with consent which did not lead to copying or reproduction shows no intention of "abandonment to the public"
+
*Barnes giving private use of his invention with consent which did not lead to copying or reproduction shows no intention of "abandonment to the public"
Telling Frances to keep the corset a secret (as the above decision says should have been done) would have been ironic)
+
*Telling Frances to keep the corset a secret (as the above decision says should have been done) would have been ironic)
The use of the invention should not be considered public.
+
*Thus, the use of the invention should not be considered public.

Latest revision as of 23:35, 16 February 2011

The Situation

  • Samuel Barnes invented an "improvement in corset-springs," and filed for a patent in March 1866
  • Egbert is the assignee of the patent
  • Frances Barnes was granted a reissue of the patent in Samuels place (death?)

Accusation

Frances brings a case of infringement against Lippmann

Decision

The patent is invalid because the invention was in public use more than two years prior to application for the patent.

Reasoning

  • The Act of 1939 renders patents invalid if they were in public use, with the consent and allowance of the inventor for more than two years prior to the application.
  • Evidence:
    • S. Barnes had given the corset to Frances sometime between January and May 1855, and she used it for a long time, and got another pair from him in 1858.
    • Barnes also showed the invention to Joseph Sturgis in 1863, showing him how it was made and used.
  • Ruling:
    • Even though Barnes only gave the invention to one person, he allowed them to use it without limitation or restriction - this qualifies as public use (number of people doesn't matter).
    • Barnes applied no restriction and implied no secrecy in giving his invention to Frances = public
    • The use of the invention was not for experimental purposes = public

Dissenting Opinion

  • Barnes giving private use of his invention with consent which did not lead to copying or reproduction shows no intention of "abandonment to the public"
  • Telling Frances to keep the corset a secret (as the above decision says should have been done) would have been ironic)
  • Thus, the use of the invention should not be considered public.