History of United States patent law

Last updated

The history of United States patent law started even before the U.S. Constitution was adopted, with some state-specific patent laws. The history spans over more than three centuries.

Contents

Background

The oldest[ dubious discuss ] form of a patent was seen in Medieval times. Medieval rulers would grant an exclusive right to a "monopoly." This was sometimes an attempt to raise funds without taxing, although taxes were still imposed. [1] In England such grants took the form of "letters patent", issued by the sovereign to inventors who petitioned and were approved: a grant of 1331 to John Kempe and his company is the earliest authenticated instance of a royal grant made with the avowed purpose of instructing the English in a new industry. [2] [3] [4]

In 1474, in Venice, the first known patent law that granted inventors exclusive rights to their inventions was passed as a result of an economic policy. Thereafter, patents were a formal means of granting and restricting monopolies in Europe. The Venice statute had all the basic elements of a modern patent system—a requirement of novelty, proof of usefulness, and a requirement that the patentee describe and explain the invention. [5]

In 1624, in England, the Statute of Monopolies was passed primarily to restrict the power of the sovereign in granting monopolies. [4] The Statute of Monopolies, for the first time in history, defined the following: that inventions had to be "new" to attain a monopoly, and that a monopoly would be granted only for a limited period of time (in this case 14 years.) These aspects have carried forward and helped shape the United States Patent Law. The Statute of Monopolies attempted to reinforce the advantages to society of new inventions; however, a French Patent Law, established in 1791, focused on the inventor and emphasized the invention as the inventor's property. The US Patent Law today adopts both streams of thought; however, the concept of monopolies and patents, in the US, initiated with the British thought of advantages to society. [1] [4]

United States patent law

Patent practice before federal patent laws

Case-specific acts

In America in the early colonial period, there were no general laws providing for the issuing of patents. However, people who invented new products could appeal to the colonial governments, which could grant them the exclusive commercial right to the products. The earliest of such rights granted in the colonies was in the state of Massachusetts in 1641. The Massachusetts General Court gave Samuel Winslow an exclusive right to utilize a new process of making salt for 10 years. The case is unofficially known of as the first "patent" in America. [6]

Other similar exclusive commercial rights were granted in other colonies and later states of the United States of America. These acts were all private acts of the colony or state governments to grant commercial privileges to specific people, before general laws regarding the issuing of patents were passed in each state. This custom of using private acts to grant patents is often said to have come from the early in England, particularly the English Statute of Monopolies of 1624.

State-level general patent laws

Near the end of the 18th century, states started to pass general patent laws replacing the case-specific acts. These state-level general acts set up standardized procedures for patent applications, an examination process, and general terms for patent holdings. The first state to pass a general patent law was South Carolina, in 1784. [7]

This first general patent act of the state of South Carolina is titled "An Act for the Encouragement of Arts and Sciences." Although most of its terms concerned the protection of copyrights, it also included the following provision: "The Inventors of useful machines shall have a like exclusive privilege of making or vending their machines for the like term of 14 years, under the same privileges and restrictions hereby granted to, and imposed on, the authors of books." [8] [9]

Many other states followed suit in passing general patent acts, most using a 14-year term, resembling English practices. However, without a federal system, patentees who wanted to use their invention in more than one state had to apply separately for patents in each state, which was expensive and time-consuming. A standardized national patent law was needed for more efficient patent grating process. [10]

United States federal patent laws

Constitution

The Constitution of the United States, first adopted on September 17, 1787, had a provision for protecting intellectual properties. The provision is found in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [11]

Patent Act of 1790

The Patent Act of 1790 was the first federal patent statute of the United States. It was titled "An Act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts." [12] The statute was concise, including only seven sections. Similar to the state statutes, the federal statute allowed the patentees a 14-year term of exclusive right to use their inventions, without the possibility of an extension. This was unsatisfactory to many inventors who wanted extended protection time for their inventions. They argued that 14 years were not enough, given that it often took several years already for their inventions to be commercialized. [13] Another important point of the Patent Act of 1790 was that it did not allow foreigners to obtain patents in the United States.

In the Patent Act of 1790, the power to grant or refuse patents was given exclusively to three people: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. Patent applicants needed the consent of at least two of the three officials to obtain a patent. The act provided that an examination process be carried out by the same three officials to decide whether the inventions were "not before known or used" and "sufficiently useful and important". This examination process was soon criticized as taking unreasonably too much time. At the same time, the people responsible for examining and granting patents had other important duties to attend to and could not carry out the process quickly. [14] It took several months for a patent to be examined. [13]

Patent Act of 1793

In 1793, the 1790 act was repealed and replaced by the Patent Act of 1793. The act was notable for its definition of the subjects of patents which remains unchanged until now: "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter". [15] In this later act, the patent application process was much simpler than in the Patent Act of 1790. People who sought patents only needed to petition the Secretary of State and then it was the duty of the Secretary of State to acquire examination from the Attorney General. The examination process was simplified by dropping the clause that patented inventions needed to be "sufficiently useful and important". It was enough that inventions were somehow useful, even if the usefulness was insignificant, and "not before known or used" to be granted patents. [16]

Obtaining patents became much easier during the period after the Patent Act of 1793 and the next federal Patent Act passed in 1836. Between the Patent Act of 1790 and that of 1793, only 57 patents were granted, but by July 2, 1836, a total of 10,000 patents had been granted. [17] This however, came at an expense of the quality of patents granted. Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State at the time, realized the need to employ experts into the patent examination process. He hired personnel from the University of Pennsylvania to help with determining the novelty and usefulness of the inventions. When more and more patent applications came in, the patent office, which was still loosely organized, was unable to adequately examine every application. In his book "Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities" Dupree commented: "The patent office languished, but inventors were ever more active." [18] Patents were granted to objects and procedures which were not original inventions or not useful. As this ineffective situation went on, more lawsuits were filed over patent validity and infringement. Patentees were dissatisfied, and courts were overwhelmed with patent lawsuits. [19]

Under the Patent Act of 1793, the United States barred foreign inventors from receiving patents at the same time as granting patents to Americans who had pirated technology from other countries. “America thus became, by national policy and legislative act, the world’s premier legal sanctuary for industrial pirates. Any American could bring a foreign innovation to the United States and commercialize the idea, all with total legal immunity.” [20]

Patent Act of 1836

Relatively few patents were issued in the early decades of the nation, not exceeding 1,000 per year until 1854. 1790- United States utility patents issued, by year - bar chart.svg
Relatively few patents were issued in the early decades of the nation, not exceeding 1,000 per year until 1854.

In 1836, another federal Patent Act was passed to reform problems in the previous acts. The Patent Act of 1836 was significant in a number of ways. Firstly, the act created an official Patent Office, which was still a part of the Department of State, but no longer under the duties of the Secretary of State. It freed the Secretary of State from the enormous duty of granting patents, when he had many other significant tasks to tend to. Instead of the Secretary of State, the Commissioner of Patents chaired the Patent Office. This restructuring of the patent office allowed for more efficient process of patent applications. Secondly, the act prevented the applications of already patented inventions by requiring information on newly granted patents to be made publicly accessible at libraries throughout the country. Anyone could consult this information to check whether his or her invention was truly original before filing for a patent. This greatly improved the quality of patents granted. [13] Thirdly, the act resolved a long-standing dissatisfaction on patent terms by allowing, for the first time, a possible extension of 7 years of protection in addition to the original 14-year term. With the permission of the Commissioner of Patent, upon appropriate reasons, patentees could appeal to have their protection extended. And lastly, it finally removed the US nationality and residency requirements, making it possible for foreigners to file for US patents. [22]

On July 13, 1836, Patent Number 1 was granted. In 1836, The Patent Office also went back and renumbered all previous patents with a suffix "X". Prior to this, patents were listed by names and dates and not numbers. After the renumbering, the very first US Patent became Patent 1X. On December 15 of the same year, a fire demolished the Patent Office, and only 2,845 patents were recovered. This resulted in a law that required all patent applications to be submitted in doubles. This law for double copies of patent applications was dropped in 1870 when the Patent Office started printing. [23]

Subsequent changes

In 1849, the Patent Office was transferred from the State Department to the Department of the Interior.

The Sherman Antitrust Act


The 1890 depression resulted in an unfavorable view of patents. The depression was marked by a strained economy in which patents were perceived as a method of promoting monopolies. This negative attitude towards patents led to the inception of the Sherman Antitrust Act. During the depression, many opposed patents, and this is depicted in the tendency of courts to invalidate patents. The conclusion of the depression also ended the negative attitudes towards patents; however, the Patent Law underwent opposition again in the Great Depression. This skepticism towards patents again returned after World War II in another period of economic depression.

In 1925, the Patent Office was transferred again from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Commerce, where it is today.

Modern patent laws

In 1952, the basic structure of the modern Patent Law was laid out with the Patent Act of 1952. In this amendment, an inventor had to describe not only his invention but also the basis for its infringement. Furthermore, an invention needed to be new and useful, as well as non- obvious to be granted a patent. [24] This amendment, which required patents to be non-obvious, was implemented to keep individuals from taking ownership or taking away from the base pool of knowledge in a particular field.

In 1982, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was abolished, and patent appeal cases were transferred to the newly established Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assured the uniformity of the patent case law in the country. [25]

In 2011, the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) enacted the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1952. After decades of debate in the U.S. comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of "first-to-invent" versus "first-to-file" systems, the AIA switched the U.S. patent system from "first to invent" to "first inventor to file". The U.S. had been the last remaining country still using a first-to-invent system. The AIA reforms eliminate interference proceedings and develop post-grant opposition. Its central provisions went into effect March 16, 2013 for patent applications filed that day or afterwards.

Terms of patents

The original patent term under the 1790 Patent Act was decided individually for each patent, but "not exceeding fourteen years". [26] The 1836 Patent Act (5 Stat. 117, 119, 5) provided (in addition to the fourteen-year term) an extension "for the term of seven years from and after the expiration of the first term" in certain circumstances. [27] In 1861 the seven-year extension was eliminated and the term changed to seventeen years (12 Stat. 246, 249, 16) (from grant date). The signing of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act [28] then changed the patent term from seventeen years from the date of issue to the current twenty years from the earliest filing date.

YearValidity
[Years]
–1789
1790–183514
1836–186021
1861–199417 (from grant date)
1995–20 (from filing date)

Other notable dates

The first U.S. patent, issued to Samuel Hopkins on July 31, 1790, for an innovative way of making "pot ash and pearl ash" FirstUSpatent.jpg
The first U.S. patent, issued to Samuel Hopkins on July 31, 1790, for an innovative way of making "pot ash and pearl ash"

Trivia

The only President of the United States to hold a patent was Abraham Lincoln for a "device to buoy vessels over shoals"; it consisted of a set of retractable floats mounted on the sides of riverboats. [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent</span> Type of legal protection for an invention

A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In most countries, patent rights fall under private law and the patent holder must sue someone infringing the patent in order to enforce their rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Patent and Trademark Office</span> United States national patent bureau

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.

In United States patent law, utility is a patentability requirement. As provided by 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is "useful" if it provides some identifiable benefit and is capable of use and "useless" otherwise. The majority of inventions are usually not challenged as lacking utility, but the doctrine prevents the patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices such as perpetual motion machines.

Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

Under United States patent law, the term of patent, provided that maintenance fees are paid on time, is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. or international application to which priority is claimed.

Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of patent law</span> Legal protection of rights in an invention

The history of patents and patent law is generally considered to have started with the Venetian Statute of 1474.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.

A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.

A patent caveat, often shortened to caveat, was a legal document filed with the United States Patent Office.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent drawing</span> Drawings illustrating patents

A patent application or patent may contain drawings, also called patent drawings, illustrating the invention, some of its embodiments, or the prior art. The drawings may be required by the law to be in a particular form, and the requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction.

In United States patent law, a composition of matter is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented. The other three are a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture. In United States patent law, that same terminology has been in use since the first patent act in 1790.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled that "a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility, so that a "specific benefit exists in currently available form" is thus the requirement for a claimed invention to qualify for a patent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of patents</span> Overview of and topical guide to patents

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to patents:

Ex parte Wood, 22 U.S. 603 (1824), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent could not be repealed based on summary proceedings without the opportunity for a jury trial. The case exemplifies a tradition in early 19th century United States patent caselaw in which patents were regarded specifically as an absolute property right to exclusive use of the invention, rather than requiring a balancing between public and private interests.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 "A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States" . Retrieved December 29, 2011.
  2. Terrell on Patents , 8th edition edited by J R Jones, London (Sweet & Maxwell) 1934.
  3. E Wyndham Hulme, The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law, Law Quarterly Review, vol.46 (1896), pp. 141–154.
  4. 1 2 3 Asbell, Matthew (May 7, 2014). "A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States". Ladas & Parry LLP. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  5. "Robert P. Merges et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (5th ed. 2010).
  6. Manufactures of the United States in 1860; compiled from the original returns of the eighth census, under the direction of the Secretary of the interior. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1865. p. cxcix.
  7. The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Volumes 8–9. South Carolina Historical Society. 1907. p. 56.
  8. Cooper, Thomas (1838). The Statutes at Large of South Carolina: Acts from 1716 to 1752. A.S. Johnston. p.  805.
  9. National Research Council (1993). Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology. National Academies Press. p. 49.
  10. Constitutional Rights Foundation, Bill of Rights in Action WINTER 2008 (Volume 23, No. 4). "The Origins of Patent and Copyright Law" . Retrieved March 26, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. copyright.gov. "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" . Retrieved March 26, 2013.
  12. docs.law.gwu.edu. "The First United States Patent Statute". Patent Act of 1790, Ch. 7, 1 Stat. 109 (April 10, 1790) CHAP. VII. – An ACT to promote the Progress of uſeful Arts. Archived from the original on March 19, 2013. Retrieved March 26, 2013.
  13. 1 2 3 Watson, Jason. "A History of the United States Patent Office". historical-markers.org. Retrieved March 26, 2013.
  14. P.J, Federico (1990). Operation of the Patent Act of 1790. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y.
  15. Patent Act of 1793, Ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318–323 (February 21, 1793).
  16. Patent Act of 1793, Ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318–323 (February 21, 1793).
  17. P.J, Federico (1990). Operation of the Patent Act of 1790. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y.
  18. Dupree, Hunter (1986). Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities. The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 43.
  19. Weber, Gustavus (1924). The Patent Office: Its History, Activities and Organization. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  20. Pat, Choate (2007). Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN   9780375402128.
  21. "U.S. Patent Activity / Calendar Years 1790 to the Present". U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 2021. Archived from the original on April 29, 2023.
  22. Patent Act of 1836, Ch. 357, 5 Stat. 117 (July 4, 1836).
  23. 1 2 Robert B. Matchette et al. Records of the Patent and Trademark Office . Maryland, 1995. The National Archives. Ed. US National Archives and Records Administration. website. National Archives.
  24. Jethro K. Lieberman, 1992, The Evolving Constitution, pp. 371–2
  25. 1 2 Lawrence M. Friedman, 2002, American Law in the 20th century, p. 427
  26. See 1790 Patent Act.
  27. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 19, 2013. Retrieved January 27, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  28. uspto.gov, Title V – Intellectual Property Archived 2013-01-21 at the Wayback Machine
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "How to Know if You Should License or Assign a Patent". Archived from the original on July 16, 2012.
  30. "Kids – Time Machine – Historic Press Releases – USPTO". Archived from the original on February 8, 2007. Retrieved April 22, 2008.
  31. 1 2 3 Muir, Ian; Brandi-Dohrn, Matthias; Gruber, Stephan (1999). European Patent Law: Law and Procedure under the EPC and PCT (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  32. "Disputes Rise Over Intellectual Property Rights". NPR's Morning Edition. September 30, 1996.
  33. Emmerson, Jason (Winter 2009), "A Man of Considerable Mechanical Genius", Invention and Technology, 23 (4): 10–13

Bibliography