CASEBRIEFS

(https://www.casebriefs.com)  

Lowell v. Lewis
Citation. Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas. 1018, 1817 U.S. App. LEXIS 169 (C.C.D. Mass.
Powered by
May 1, 1817)
(https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/document/XC58UVQNB5G0)
(https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/document/XC58UVQNB5G0)

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here (https://profile.bna.com/bloomberglaw-activate/)

Brief Fact Summary. Lowell (Plaintiff) must prove his pump invention is useful.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The usefulness requirement of the Patent Act is satisfied if the invention is
not frivolous or injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society.

POINTS OF LAW - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

All that the law requires is, that the invention should not be frivolous or
Powered by

injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society. (https://www.bloombergla

View Full Point of Law jcsearch=23127499#jcite?
(https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/document/Y910QO00000000000000C58UVQNB5G0?
jcsearch=23127499#jcite?utm_source=cb_pols)

Facts. Plaintiff argued that because his pump satisfies the “useful” requirement of The Patent Act of
1793 it deserved patent protection.
Issue. Is the usefulness requirement of the Patent Act satisfied if the invention is not frivolous or
injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society?

Held. (Story, J.)  Yes.  The usefulness requirement of the Patent Act is satisfied if the invention is not
frivolous or injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society.  Lewis (Defendant)
states that Plaintiff’s pump must surpass the pumps in common use in order to receive patent
protection.  This is not correct.  The Patent Act of 1793 uses the term “useful invention”
incidentally.  It occurs only in the first section and is merely descriptive of the applicant’s subject
matter or the applicant’s conviction.  If the invention is mischievous or immoral, such as a method to
poison or assassinate, then it would be unpatentable.  However, if the invention steers clear of this
limited category, it would be patentable.  This is true even if the invention serves no purpose.  In that
case, the invention may sink into contempt and disregard, but it will remain patentable.

Discussion. While on the circuit in New England, Justice Story provided several influential decisions
concerning U.S. patent law.  In 1818, he explained the definition of utility by defining it as an invention
that may be useful to society.  See Bedford v. Hunt, 3 Fed. Cas. 37 (D. Mass. 1817).  Because of this
liberal standard, it is hardly surprising that utility is rarely litigated.  Courts are not necessarily looking
for something better, just different.

he “phenomena of nature” doctrine, five justices of the Supreme Court dismissed the writ on a
procedural basis.  Two other justices joined Justice Breyer in his dissent, and Chief Justice Roberts
was not involved in the case.  Because the Supreme Court refused to provide clear direction regarding
patentable subject matter in the area of natural correlation, patent attorneys must be careful to
interpret and distinguish between the clear disapproval expressed in the dissent and the long-standing
approval of the Federal Circuit cases.

Law Advertise (https://www.casebriefs.com/advertise/)

(https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/category/law/) Contact
Us (https://www.casebriefs.com/contact/)
Pre Law Privacy
Policy
(https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/category/pre- (https://www.casebriefs.com/privacy/)
law/) Terms
Of Use
The
Legal Beat (https://www.casebriefs.com/legal- (https://www.casebriefs.com/terms/)
beat/)
My Account / Tools
(https://www.casebriefs.com/user-page)

CASEBRIEFS

(https://www.casebriefs.com)
Casebriefs LLC © 2021