Le Roy v. Tatham
1853 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Le Roy v. Tatham?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that "a newly discovered principle" cannot be patented, and no one can claim in it an exclusive right. This case is considered sometimes as the earliest example of patentable subject matter controversy in the US patent law.[1] This controversy was finally rectified in the 2012 Mayo decision, that requires for a claim, comprising a "natural principle or a law of Nature" to have an additional "inventive concept", which limits the application of the principle to a particular use.
Le Roy v. Tatham | |
---|---|
Argued December 16, 17, 20, 21, 1852 Decided January 10, 1853 | |
Full case name | Thomas Otis Le Roy and David Smith, Plaintiffs in Error v. Benjamin Tatham, Junior, George N. Tatham, and Henry B. Tatham |
Citations | 55 U.S. 156 (more) |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | McLean, joined by Taney, Catron, Daniel, Campbell |
Dissent | Nelson, joined by Wayne, Grier |
Curtis took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
The inventors had discovered the principle that hot, but congealed, lead under pressure would re-unite as an unbroken solid material, which permitted manufacture of a superior lead pipe. The apparatus to make lead pipe was old and obvious: the inventors, by making slight changes in the old machinery to provide sufficient heat and pressure to remelt the lead, in effect, invented a new use of an old machine. The claim was to the old or obvious apparatus (as an apparatus) "when used to form pipes of metal under heat and pressure in the manner set forth or in any other manner substantially the same." It was not lawful to patent the old apparatus again, however used, so that the patent amounted to an attempt to patent the principle. That made the patent invalid.[2]