Egbert v. Lippmann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Egbert v. Lippmann | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued October term, 1881 Decided December 12, 1881 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| Sale or public use of an invention for a statutorily-specified time period bars patenting of that invention. | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Morrison Waite Associate Justices: Nathan Clifford, Samuel Freeman Miller, Stephen Johnson Field, Joseph Philo Bradley, Ward Hunt, John Marshall Harlan, William Burnham Woods, Thomas Stanley Matthews |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: Woods Joined by: Waite, Clifford, Field, Bradley, Hunt, Harlan, Matthews Dissent by: Miller |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it.
Contents |
[edit] Facts and procedural history
Samuel Barnes designed “corset-steels”, which were springs to hold a corset together. In 1855 he gave the springs as a gift to his girlfriend Frances, who would later become his wife and the executrix of his will. In 1858 he gave her another set of steels, which she used for a long time. In 1863, Samuel and Frances showed the invention to his friend Joseph Sturgis, a later witness to the invention; and in 1866 Samuel applied for a patent which was granted in 1873. Then, Frances sued for patent infringement which resulted in both a loss and patent No. 5216 being declared void.
[edit] Majority opinion
Justice Woods wrote for the majority, explaining that public use of the invention by only one person is sufficient to be considered a public use, even where the usage of the invention is not visible to the general public. Similarly, a gift to another party without regards to secrecy or restrictions on use is sufficient to bar a patent for the same reason. Woods held that the use here was different from that in City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Company because this was not a good faith effort to test or experiment with the design. Furthermore, Barnes “slept on his rights” for the eleven years between 1855 and 1866, not applying for a patent until other manufacturers had already incorporated aspects similar to Barnes’ design into their own products. He did not bother applying for a patent until he came to the belated realization that he could potentially profit from his invention. Thus, the court held that the patent was invalid.
[edit] Dissent
Justice Miller was the sole dissenter in this case, disagreeing with the majority about the “public” nature of Frances’ use of the corset-steels. The use was not visible to the public, as it was only used by one woman, underneath her outer clothing, and could not have divulged the nature or design of the invention to the public at large.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ 104 U.S. 333 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Justia.com.
