Evans v. Jordan

Last updated
Evans v. Jordan
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 2, 1815
Full case nameEvans v. Jordan and Morehead
Citations13 U.S. 199 ( more )
9 Cranch 199; 3 L. Ed. 704
Case history
Prior Certificate of division from the District of Virginia [1]
SubsequentNone
Holding
A person who copies a patented invention after the patent has expired, but before it is restored by a private law, will be liable for infringement damages for any use of the invention that continues after the patent is restored.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington  · William Johnson
H. Brockholst Livingston  · Thomas Todd
Gabriel Duvall  · Joseph Story
Case opinion
MajorityWashington, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Patent Act of 1800, [2] An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans [3]

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 199 (1815), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored. It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, [4] and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton , however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, [5] but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.

Contents

Background

Evans' automated flour mill. Oliver Evans - Automated mill.jpg
Evans' automated flour mill.

In the 1780s, prolific inventor Oliver Evans developed a system for an automated flour mill that would revolutionize milling technology. Initially keeping his invention a secret, he obtained protection for it through individual state statutes, for example in Maryland [6] and New Hampshire, [7] because the federal patent system did not yet exist. When the Patent Act of 1790 took effect, Evans obtained the third United States patent ever issued. No copies of the patent are extant today. [8]

As all patents at the time had 14-year terms, Evans' patent lapsed in 1804, and the invention entered the public domain. Immediately upon the expiration of his patent, he sought a federal private bill that would allow him to renew it, the first such request ever made. [9] He was unsuccessful until 1808, when the Tenth Congress passed a law authorizing the Secretary of State to grant him a new patent on the same terms as the original one. [3] [10]

Crucially for this case, however, the law contained a proviso to protect those who had used the invention since the original patent expired:

provided [...] that no person who shall have used the said improvements, or have erected the same for use before the issuing of said patent shall be liable for damages therefor. [11]

Evans obtained his new patent on January 22, 1808, the day after the law took effect. [12] But in the intervening years, the defendants Jordan and Morehead had constructed a mill using Evans' invention.

Evans sued Jordan and Morehead for patent infringement in the District Court of Virginia in 1810, [12] seeking treble damages under the Patent Act amendments of 1800. [2] Jordan and Morehead defended on the basis that they had constructed the mill while the patent was expired, and the proviso to the 1808 law specifically excluded damages for using or building the invention while the patent was expired. Therefore, the defendants urged, they should not be liable even for the continued use of the mill, since (1) such a reading would vitiate the purpose of the statute's exemption for use between 1804 and 1808, since it would effectively penalize them for having built the invention during that period, and (2) such legislation would be an unconstitutional taking, because it would effectively deprive them of the use of their lawfully constructed mill.

The circuit court was divided. Justice Marshall as circuit judge authored an opinion in favor of Evans, reasoning that the language of the statute was plain on its face: it exempted only damages for use or construction of the invention that occurred while the patent was expired, and did not give any exemption for continuing use after the patent was renewed. In particular, Marshall observed that "the act for the relief of Oliver Evans, considered independent of any former patent, would authorize him to sustain an action for the use of his invention, after the date of his patent, although the machinery itself had been constructed before its date." [13]

However, the district judge Tucker did not agree with Marshall's reasoning. Therefore, the case went to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division. [14]

Opinion of the Court

The Court, minus Justice Todd who was absent, unanimously affirmed Justice Marshall's judgment in the district court. The opinion was authored by Justice Washington.

The court held, first, that the statute plainly did not exempt infringers from damages for a continuing infringement after the patent was renewed, [15] and second, that any hardship caused by this result could not justify construing the statute in a way that would be at odds with its plain meaning. [16]

The opinion followed an emerging principle in the judicial decisions of the time on statutory construction: that a statute should never be construed in such a way as to thwart the legislature's policy intent. [17]

Subsequent developments

In the 21st century, the Supreme Court has cited the case in connection with Congressional manipulations of copyright terms. It was cited to support both the 2003 opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft , [18] which upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the 2012 Supreme Court opinion in Golan v. Holder , which examined the long tradition of upholding legislative grants of intellectual property that had previously passed into the public domain. [19]

Works cited

Related Research Articles

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913), was a 1913 United States Supreme Court decision involving whether a purchaser of a patented product bearing a price-fixing notice incurs guilt of patent infringement by reselling the product at a price lower than that which the notice commands. A divided Court (5–4) held that it was not.

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

In United States patent law, patent misuse is a patent holder's use of a patent to restrain trade beyond enforcing the exclusive rights that a lawfully obtained patent provides. If a court finds that a patent holder committed patent misuse, the court may rule that the patent holder has lost the right to enforce the patent. Patent misuse that restrains economic competition substantially can also violate United States antitrust law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Research exemption</span>

In patent law, the research exemption or safe harbor exemption is an exemption to the rights conferred by patents, which is especially relevant to drugs. According to this exemption, despite the patent rights, performing research and tests for preparing regulatory approval, for instance by the FDA in the United States, does not constitute infringement for a limited term before the end of patent term. This exemption allows generic manufacturers to prepare generic drugs in advance of the patent expiration.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should be issued.

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent Act of 1790</span>

The Patent Act of 1790 was the first patent statute passed by the federal government of the United States. It was enacted on April 10, 1790, about one year after the constitution was ratified and a new government was organized. The law was concise, defining the subject matter of a U.S. patent as "any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement there on not before known or used." It granted the applicant the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used" of his invention.

<i>Schillinger v. United States</i> 1894 United States Supreme Court case

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a facially trivial implementation of a natural principle or phenomenon of nature is not eligible for a patent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defences and remedies in Canadian patent law</span>

A patent holder in Canada has the exclusive right, privilege and liberty to making, constructing, using and selling the invention for the term of the patent, from the time the patent is granted. Any person who does any of these acts in relation to an invention without permission of the patent owner is liable for patent infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent infringement in Canadian law</span>

Once an invention is patented in Canada, exclusive rights are granted to the patent holder as defined by s.42 of the Patent Act. Any interference with the patent holder's "full enjoyment of the monopoly granted by the patent" is considered a patent infringement. Making, constructing, using, or selling a patented invention without the patent holder's permission can constitute infringement. Possession of a patented object, use of a patented object in a process, and inducement or procurement of an infringement may also, in some cases, count as infringement.

Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454 (1818), however, it did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with the law of patent assignment.

Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454 (1818), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent disclosing an improved method of manufacture by means of several different improved machines should be construed to claim both the method and the improvements to the machines, but not to include the machines apart from the inventor's improvements.

Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art.

Evans v. Hettich, 20 U.S. 453 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a witness's testimony could not be objected to merely because the witness suffered from "fits of derangement", as long as the witness was sane when he testified.

Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917), is United States Supreme Court decision that is notable as an early example of the patent misuse doctrine. It held that, because a patent grant is limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, the patent law does not empower the patent owner, by notices attached to the patented article, to extend the scope of the patent monopoly by restricting the use of the patented article to materials necessary for their operation but forming no part of the patented invention, or to place downstream restrictions on the articles making them subject to conditions as to use. The decision overruled The Button-Fastener Case, and Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., which had held such restrictive notices effective and enforceable.

Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912), was a 1912 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld patent licensing restrictions such as tie-ins on the basis of the so-called inherency doctrine—the theory that it was the inherent right of a patent owner, because he could lawfully refuse to license his patent at all, to exercise the "lesser" right to license it on any terms and conditions he chose. In 1917, the Supreme Court overruled the A.B. Dick case in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.,

Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1 (1829), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held invalid a patent on a method of making hose, because the inventor had commercially exploited the invention for years before filing the patent application. The case has been cited many times for the proposition that the U.S. patent system was not established for the purpose of enriching inventors or their financiers but rather for the purpose of furthering the public interest by stimulating technological progress.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

References

  1. ↑ Evans v. Jordan et al., 8 F. Cas. 872 (1813).
  2. 1 2 2 Stat. 37
  3. 1 2 "An Act for the Relief of Oliver Evans", 6 Stat. 70.
  4. ↑ Malla Pollack, The Owned Public Domain: The Constitutional Right Not to Be Excluded - or the Supreme Court Chose the Right Breakfast Cereal in Kellogg v. National Biscuit Co., 22 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 265, 291 n119 (2000).
  5. ↑ Harold C. Wegner, Post-Merck Experimental Use and the "Safe Harbor", 15 Fed. Circuit B.J. 1, 37 (2005).
  6. ↑ Maryland; Kilty, William (1787). "An Act to grant to Oliver Evans, for a term of years, the sole and exclusive right of making and selling within this state the machines herein described". The Laws of Maryland: 1785-1799. p. 121.
  7. ↑ Hampshire, New (1789). "An Act to Grant to Oliver Evans for a Term of Years the Exclusive Right of Making and Selling within this State the Machines Herein Described". Laws of New Hampshire: First constitutional period, 1784-1792. p. 401.
  8. ↑ Federico 1945, p. 589.
  9. ↑ Federico 1945, p. 598.
  10. ↑ Benagh, Christine P. (1979). The history of private patent legislation in the House of Representatives. US Government Printing Office. p. 6.
  11. ↑ 13 U.S. at 200.
  12. 1 2 Evans v. Jordan, 8 F. Cas. 872, 872 (C.C.D. Va. 1813).
  13. ↑ Evans v. Jordan, 8 F. Cas. 872, 874 (C.C.D. Va. 1813) aff'd, 13 U.S. 199, 3 L. Ed. 704 (1815).
  14. ↑ Federico 1945, p. 610.
  15. ↑ 13 U.S. at 202.
  16. ↑ 13 U.S. at 203.
  17. ↑ William N. Eskridge, Jr., All About Words: Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 990, 1078, n444 (2001)
  18. ↑ Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 202, 123 S. Ct. 769, 779-80, 154 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2003)
  19. ↑ Golan v. Holder, 33 ITRD 1769, 132 S. Ct. 873, 886, 181 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2012).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.