Rubber-Tip Pencil Co v. Howard

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the case of a pencil eraser, the US Supreme Court found that pure ideas cannot be patented.

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co v. Howard (87 US 498) was an important case in American patent law . In it the Supreme Court ruled in 1874 that it is not possible to patent the invention of attaching an eraser to a pencil. In general, the court made statements about the limitation of a patent and made it clear that it is not sufficient to have an idea patented, but that a concrete form is required. In the special case it found that the basic idea was good but not patentable, the specific implementation was in principle patentable but not new. Together with O'Reilly v. Morse introduces Rubber-Tip Pencil Co v. Howard makes it one of the two important cases of the case law that set the limits of patentability.

The inventor James A. Blair had received a patent in 1869 for attaching an eraser to a pencil . However, he had written the patent specification as broadly as possible so that, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, it comprised any type of eraser or eraser tool that was firmly connected to a pencil or ink pen or the like. The patent had passed into the property of the Rubber-Tip Pencil Company, which in turn accused its competitor Howard of producing pencils of the same type. The Court found that the idea was good in itself, but not patentable in that form. Since the general properties of rubber were already known at that time, as well as the fact that it could erase pencil marks, it was obvious that it could be attached to a wooden pencil with the help of a hole. He denied Blair's complaint. While the case was only relevant for little-noticed areas of patent law for a long time, the situation changed in the late 1990s. The State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group opened the door for software patents and patents on business concepts, so that the patentability of ideas came back close to current case law. Together with O'Reilly v. Morse forms Rubber-Tip Pencil Co v. Howard thus again the important yardstick to meet unpatentable ideas of patentable concrete inventions in US law.

Remarks

  1. ↑ David J. Kappos, John R. Thomas and Randall J. Bluestone: A Technological Contribution Requirement for Patentable Subject Matter: Supreme Court Precedent and Policy in: Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Volume 6, Issue 2 as pdf
  2. ^ Gregory A. Stobbs: Software patents Aspen Publishers Online, 2000 ISBN 0735514992 p. 130
  3. ^ Stern, Richard H. 1999: Scope-of-Protection Problems With Patents and Copyrights on Methods of Doing Business. In: FORDHAM INTELL. PROP., MEDIA & ENT. LJ [vol. 10: 105 1999] p. 113 as pdf

Web links