U.S. v. Adams (KyleR)

Overview

---

• decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966
• companion case to Graham v. John Deere
• Adams is suing U.S. Government for patent infringement
• claim upheld by Trial Commissioner and Court of Claims
• Supreme Court affirmed earlier decision

Description of the Patent

---

• issued to Adams in 1943
• a non-rechargeable electrical battery using one magnesium and one cuprous chloride electrode that uses water as an electrolyte
  • manufactured and distributed in a dry condition and activated by addition of water
• while the claims do not make mention of the battery using a water electrolyte, this can be assumed from the specifications submitted with the patent application.

Prior Art

---

• Marie Davy cell - was probably capable of working with pure water; does not pursue the idea.
• Wood patent - introduces magnesium as an electrode material; does not make mention of using it with cuprous chloride or a water electrolyte.
• Codd treatise - says magnesium would be a theoretically desirable electrode; does not attempt to implement.
• Wensky patent - introduced cuprous chloride as an electrode; does not use with Mg or water electrolyte.
• Skrivanoff patent - a battery designed to give intermittent service; requires an acidic electrolyte; attempts at implementation were unsuccessful.

Novelty

---

• even though elements of Adams' battery may have been known, they were never used in the way Adams used them.

Utility

---

• the Government admits that Adams' battery shows operating advantages over others.

Nonobviousness

---

• Adams' invention went against two norms:
  1. not practical for batteries to operate on an open circuit and heated in use
  2. water can only be used when combined with other electrolytes that damage magnesium
• experts expressed disbelief at Adams' battery
• experts recognized the significance of the invention
• experts have patented improvements to Adams' battery

Return to Course Notes (KyleR)