Michael Risch

Villanova University School of Law

Florida Law Review, Vol. 64, 2012


Courts and commentators vigorously debate early American patent history because of a spotty documentary record. To fill these gaps, scholars have examined the adoption of the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution, correspondence, dictionaries, and British and colonial case law. But there is one largely ignored body of information – the content of early patents themselves. While many debate what the founders thought, no one asks what early inventors thought – and those thoughts are telling. This article is the first comprehensive examination of how early inventors and their patents should inform our current thoughts about the patent system.

To better understand our early patent history, we read every available patent issued prior to the institution of the “modern” examination system in 1836, totaling nearly 2,500 handwritten patents. For good measure, we also read the first 1,200 patents issued after 1836, the last of which issued in the middle of 1839.

Part I discusses how vague and ambiguous patents are relevant to early judicial discussion of “principles.” In conjunction with misplaced reliance on English law, the patents suggest a different interpretation of “principles” in these cases. In short, patentable subject matter jurisprudence developed in a way that was not necessarily intended by the first Congress.

Part II discusses some noteworthy patents, including asbestos and lead paint, milk of magnesia, many business methods, and a programmable loom that predated Babbage’s Analytical Engine. This might lead us to reconsider how we view technological change in the patent system.

Part III presents a surprising rebuttal to those who believe that the machine-or-transformation test is engrained in American inventive ethos. This test requires that, to be patentable subject matter, a claimed process must be performed by a machine or transform matter to a different state. Though the Federal Circuit formally introduced this test in 2008, courts and scholars present it as a “historical” limitation on patentable subject matter. Examination of the first fifty years of patents shows that forty percent of patented processes would have failed the machine-or-transformation test, whether or not the patents were tested by the Patent Office. Many method patents did not involve a machine and did not transform matter to a different state or thing.

The article concludes with some suggestions about how we might rethink patentable subject matter in light of America’s first patents.

PDF here


Category: Legal, Technology, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

One Response to “America’s First Patents”

  1. formerlawyer says:

    Conclusions: Early patent history is not a guide.

    “Hopefully, however, the findings here will focus the discussion on the appropriate areas. Some examples of areas for discussion include:
    •whether useful arts is limited to manufacturing and, even if so, whether changing technology over time means that our view of useful arts should expand;
    •whether early judicial decisions hostile to patentable processes should be relied on today, despite later rejection by the Supreme Court and contrary language in the 1952 Patent Act;
    •whether courts should disregard patents claiming physical processes and machines to instead find abstract principles;
    •whether there are policy reasons to limit business methods patents despite their apparent patentability, and how to identify such patents; and
    •whether there are existing and generally applicable reasons to disfavor business methods, such as obviousness or lack of practical utility.
    These and other issues are quite important. This article provides some insight into how we should view them in light of our early inventive history. In short, we must consider these issues today, because history does not provide the answer.”