Difference between revisions of "Hotchkiss Knobs"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
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
+
   + 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
+
   + 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
+
   + Shank existed
   Knob existed
+
   + Knob existed
   Method of linking two and making out of clay was not beyond the scope of a typical mechanic in the field
+
   + 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