Previously, I talked about the Graham factors from the Graham vs John Deere Co. case. On the same day as the Graham judgement, another trial involving the Government was decided - United States vs Adams. They were consolidated cases argued together and thus decided together.
Adams invented a wet battery using magnesium and cuprous chloride electrodes, and activated by water. He did not specifically claim that the use of water was what made his invention unique, but simply mentioned that the "battery is ready for use by merely filling with water". Anyway, Adams demonstrated the battery to the United States Army Signal Corps, and their scientists still did not believe the claims. A Government expert from the National Bureau of Standards also expressed doubt a year later. However, at the peak of World War 2, the Army Signal Corps concluded that the battery could work, and the Government then hired various manufacturers to produce the battery, without notifying or seeking permission from Adams.
As a result, Adams sued the Government for infringement and breach of impled contract. The Government, in turn, challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the concept of chemical batteries using metal electrodes was not new and, thus, the claims lacking novelty and being obvious. The Supreme Court felt that the prior art taught away from the invention - all but one mentioned the use of water, and that which did discouraged its use, so the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adams.
Anyway, an amusing story about the case, which I will simply copy from Wikipedia (referenced from the book Patent Law: In a Nutshell) so that it remains comical:
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/39/
http://www.google.com/patents/US2322210?dq=2322210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Adams
Adams invented a wet battery using magnesium and cuprous chloride electrodes, and activated by water. He did not specifically claim that the use of water was what made his invention unique, but simply mentioned that the "battery is ready for use by merely filling with water". Anyway, Adams demonstrated the battery to the United States Army Signal Corps, and their scientists still did not believe the claims. A Government expert from the National Bureau of Standards also expressed doubt a year later. However, at the peak of World War 2, the Army Signal Corps concluded that the battery could work, and the Government then hired various manufacturers to produce the battery, without notifying or seeking permission from Adams.
As a result, Adams sued the Government for infringement and breach of impled contract. The Government, in turn, challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the concept of chemical batteries using metal electrodes was not new and, thus, the claims lacking novelty and being obvious. The Supreme Court felt that the prior art taught away from the invention - all but one mentioned the use of water, and that which did discouraged its use, so the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adams.
Anyway, an amusing story about the case, which I will simply copy from Wikipedia (referenced from the book Patent Law: In a Nutshell) so that it remains comical:
"Adams's attorney arose before the Supreme Court, took a drink from his glass of water, and then dropped a tiny Adams battery into the glass. The inventive battery immediately lit a tiny light that continued to burn throughout the argument. Some accounts suggest that the attorney knew he had won the case when the Justices kept their eyes on the tiny burning light throughout the remainder of the argument."It is certainly very interesting and I hope you laugh at it as I did. It does show attorneys have interesting ways to capture the attention and awe of judges, like we do in presentations to the class!
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/39/
http://www.google.com/patents/US2322210?dq=2322210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Adams
This entry is great! I loved the inclusion of the Wikipedia excerpt. It really is dramatic but demonstrates how one can stand up against insensible ruling. I hope that many small companies or inventors take his actions to note that just because the government has other motivations that may lead to the rejection of patents doesn't mean that it is valid. I often wonder, if I were to be in this position, how would I react?
ReplyDelete