Difference between revisions of "Hotchkiss Knobs"
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchAdam Mahood (talk | contribs) |
Adam Mahood (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD | + | '''HOTCHKISS v. GREENWOOD''' |
| − | Background | + | '''Background''' |
- USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing, | - USSC – 1850 – Hotchkiss = inventor, appealing, | ||
- Patent for making a knob out of clay | - Patent for making a knob out of clay | ||
- Hotchkiss sued defendant Greenwood for violating patent –pleaded not guilty | - 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 | - 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 | |
Latest revision as of 19:03, 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
