Ex parte Wood
| Ex parte Wood | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 11, 1824 Decided March 17, 1824 |
|
| Full case name | Ex parte Wood and Brundage |
| Citations | 22 U.S. 603 (more)
22 U.S. 603, 9 Wheat. 603, 6 L. Ed. 171
|
| Subsequent history | None |
| Holding | |
| A patent cannot be invalidated based on summary proceedings. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Story, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Patent Act of 1793) | |
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Wood, 22 U.S. 603 (1824), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent could not be repealed based on summary proceedings without the opportunity for a jury trial.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.
In 1819, Jethro Wood patented a cast-iron moldboard plow with replaceable parts, which revolutionized American agriculture and laid the foundation for the later John Deere plow. His patent issued on September 1, 1819. But despite his invention's success, and although he was born to a wealthy Quaker family, he would die impoverished in 1834, having exhausted his funds on patent infringement suits.
Among those suits was the action at issue here, in which Wood brought suit against Charles Wood and Gilbert Brundage in the Southern District of New York to invalidate their later patent on a similar plow, which had been issued on November 9, 1820. (Because of the Patent Office fire of 1836, the actual patents at issue here are not extant.) The Patent Act of 1793 allowed a suit for invalidity to be brought within three years of the contested patent being issued.
The district court issued a rule nisi, ordering Charles Wood and Gilbert Brundage to appear and show cause why their patent should not be invalidated. They did so, but their arguments were not satisfactory to the court, which ordered the patent repealed immediately by a rule absolute. They moved for a scire facias proceeding, to have a jury trial on the validity of their patent, but the judge denied their motion.
...
Wikipedia