Egbert v. Lippmann

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Egbert v. Lippmann
ArgueDate=November 11
ArgueDateB=14
ArgueYear=1881
DecideDate=December 12
DecideYear=1881
FullName=Egbert v. Lippmann
USVol=104
USPage=333
Citation=26 L. Ed. 755; 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2008; 14 Otto 333
Prior=On appeal from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Subsequent=
Holding=Sale or public use of an invention for a statutorily-specified time period bars patenting of that invention.
SCOTUS=1881
Majority=Woods
JoinMajority=Waite, Clifford, Field, Bradley, Hunt, Harlan, Matthews
Dissent=Miller
LawsApplied=UnitedStatesCode|35|102

"Egbert v. Lippmann", 104 U.S. 333 (1881) [ [http://supreme.justia.com/us/104/333/case.html 104 U.S. 333] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Justia.com.] , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it.

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; and in 1866 Samuel applied for a patent. Then, Frances sued for patent infringement.

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.

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.

References