Egbert v. Lippmann
104 U.S. 333 (1881)
Overview: In this case, the Supreme Court held that public use of an invention bars it from being patentable.
Procedural Background and Facts: In 1855, Samuel Barnes, a “corset steel†designer, developed a spring system that was used to hold a corset together – he gave his invention to his girlfriend. Years later, he designed another set, gave them to his now wife, Frances. In 1863, Barnes showed his invention to his longtime friend. After doing so, Barnes applied for a patent. Interestingly, Barnes’ wife sued for patent infringement, claiming that she and her husband were the rightful owners of the patent even though they did not apply for the patent back in 1855.
Court’s Reasoning:
• Public use of an invention, even by one person is sufficient enough to be considered a public use although it may not be visible to others. Further, because Barnes’ gifted the spring system to his girlfriend/wife, without restrictions on its use, is also enough to bar obtaining a patent.
• Barnes’ over the course of eleven years could have easily applied for a patent of his spring system. Instead of doing so, Barnes’ chose to wait. When the time came for applying for the patent, it was too late, as other companies had also discovered and manufactured a similar spring system.
Holding: Patent invalid.
104 U.S. 333 (1881)
Overview: In this case, the Supreme Court held that public use of an invention bars it from being patentable.
Procedural Background and Facts: In 1855, Samuel Barnes, a “corset steel†designer, developed a spring system that was used to hold a corset together – he gave his invention to his girlfriend. Years later, he designed another set, gave them to his now wife, Frances. In 1863, Barnes showed his invention to his longtime friend. After doing so, Barnes applied for a patent. Interestingly, Barnes’ wife sued for patent infringement, claiming that she and her husband were the rightful owners of the patent even though they did not apply for the patent back in 1855.
Court’s Reasoning:
• Public use of an invention, even by one person is sufficient enough to be considered a public use although it may not be visible to others. Further, because Barnes’ gifted the spring system to his girlfriend/wife, without restrictions on its use, is also enough to bar obtaining a patent.
• Barnes’ over the course of eleven years could have easily applied for a patent of his spring system. Instead of doing so, Barnes’ chose to wait. When the time came for applying for the patent, it was too late, as other companies had also discovered and manufactured a similar spring system.
Holding: Patent invalid.