Difference between revisions of "HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD, 52 U.S. 11 (1850)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "== Situation == *On July 29, 1841 the plaintiff's Hotchkiss, Davenport and Quincy were granted a patent for a "new and useful method of making door and other knowbs of all kinds ...")
 
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
*There was one dissenting opinion: the knobs, however "simple and obvious" should be patented because they are new, and provide a better and cheaper alternative - he says some innventions are "happy ones...made without the exercise of great skill."
 
*There was one dissenting opinion: the knobs, however "simple and obvious" should be patented because they are new, and provide a better and cheaper alternative - he says some innventions are "happy ones...made without the exercise of great skill."
 +
 +
== In Class ==
 +
*Overview: Patent involves novelty, utility, and non-obviousness
 +
**non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, comvbination

Revision as of 12:52, 26 January 2011

Situation

  • On July 29, 1841 the plaintiff's Hotchkiss, Davenport and Quincy were granted a patent for a "new and useful method of making door and other knowbs of all kinds of clay used in potter, and of porcelain" fused into a cavity in a certain way

Accusation

  • In October 1845, Hotchkiss brought an action against the defendants (Greenwood) for violation of patent rights.
  • Greenwood claims that the invention protected by the patent (the ceramic door knobs) were "made, used and sold" and that the method for creating suck knobs was "known and practiced" well before July 1841. In other words, the plaintiffs were not "the original and first inventors and discoverers of making or manufacturing knobs of potters clay"

Outcome

  • The court ruled that the "only thing new was the subsitution of a knob made out of clay...for a knob of metal or wood," meaning ceramic doorknobs were an obvious extension of the former art of doorknob making - and thus not worthy of a patent.

Reasoning

  • No more "ingenuity and skill" was necessary to make the new doorknob than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with doorknob making
  • Jury (in Ohio circuit court)found that the improvement only consisted in the "superiority of the material," and no other ingenuity. This substitution of material cannot be the subject of a patent.
  • U.S. Supreme court affirms the decision.
  • There was one dissenting opinion: the knobs, however "simple and obvious" should be patented because they are new, and provide a better and cheaper alternative - he says some innventions are "happy ones...made without the exercise of great skill."

In Class

  • Overview: Patent involves novelty, utility, and non-obviousness
    • non-obviousness: inventiveness, invention, comvbination