Legal Definitions - Patent Act of 1793

The Patent Act of 1793 was an influential early United States law that significantly shaped the nation's patent system. It introduced several key changes, primarily simplifying the process for inventors to secure a patent. Instead of requiring a government examination to determine if an invention was truly new or innovative, the Act established a system of simple registration. This meant that a patent could be granted by merely filing the necessary paperwork with the State Department, without a thorough review of the invention's merits.

Consequently, the responsibility for evaluating a patent's validity largely shifted to the courts. The Act allowed individuals accused of patent infringement to defend themselves by arguing that the patent itself was invalid. Common defenses included proving that the invention lacked novelty (meaning it was not genuinely new) or that it had already been in public use before the patent was granted. Additionally, the Act clearly defined the four categories of subject matter that could be patented: a machine, a manufacture, a composition of matter, and an art (which is now referred to as a process).

• Example 1: The Novelty Challenge to a Grain Thresher Patent

  Imagine an inventor in 1795 registers a patent for a "new and improved grain thresher" with the State Department. The registration is processed quickly, as there's no extensive review of the invention's originality. A few years later, a farmer in a neighboring county begins using a similar thresher. The original inventor sues the farmer for patent infringement. In court, the farmer's defense attorney presents evidence that a nearly identical grain thresher design was widely known and used in England for decades prior to 1795, demonstrating that the patented invention lacked novelty. The court, under the provisions of the Patent Act of 1793, would then have to decide if the patent was indeed invalid based on this evidence.

  How this illustrates the Patent Act of 1793: This scenario highlights the Act's shift to simple registration, where patents were granted without prior examination. It also demonstrates how the Act placed the burden of proving a patent's validity on the courts, specifically by allowing the defense of lack of novelty in an infringement case.

• Example 2: The Public Use Defense for a Unique Loom Design

  Consider a textile manufacturer who, in 1798, develops a unique loom design that significantly speeds up fabric production. For three years, the manufacturer openly uses this loom in their factory, allowing employees and even some visiting merchants to observe its operation. After seeing its success, the manufacturer decides to register a patent for the loom. Soon after, a rival manufacturer independently develops a very similar loom. When the original manufacturer sues for patent infringement, the rival's legal team argues that the patent is invalid because the loom had been in public use for an extended period before the patent was ever registered, making it ineligible for protection under the 1793 Act.

  How this illustrates the Patent Act of 1793: This example showcases the "public use" defense established by the Act. It illustrates that even if an invention was genuinely new, its open use by the inventor for a period before registration could render a subsequent patent invalid when challenged in court.

• Example 3: Patenting a New "Composition of Matter"

  An apothecary in Philadelphia, in 1794, formulates a new medicinal salve by combining specific herbs and animal fats in a unique ratio. Believing this to be a valuable invention, the apothecary applies for and receives a patent for this "composition of matter" through the simple registration process. The State Department records the patent without evaluating the scientific novelty of the salve. Later, a competitor creates a very similar salve. When the apothecary sues for infringement, the competitor might argue that the specific combination of ingredients, while perhaps effective, did not constitute a truly new "composition of matter" as envisioned by the Act, or that the ingredients were already commonly known, thus challenging the patent's validity within one of the defined categories.

  How this illustrates the Patent Act of 1793: This example demonstrates the Act's inclusion of "composition of matter" as a patentable category. It also reinforces the concept of simple registration and how the ultimate determination of whether an invention truly fit a patentable category and possessed novelty was left to the courts to decide during infringement disputes.