America’s First Patents

Florida Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 5 Article 4 10-17-2012 America’s First Patents Michael Risch Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Michael Risch, America’s First Patents, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1279 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact . Risch: America’s First Patents AMERICA‘S FIRST PATENTS Michael Risch Abstract 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit formally introduced this test in 2008, courts and scholars present it as a ―historical‖ limitation on patentable subject matter.  Michael Risch, Associate Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law. The author thanks Colleen Chien, Tom Field, Adam Mossoff, Kristen Osenga, David Schwartz, and various commenters at Groklaw and the Patently-O blogs for their helpful comments and feedback. Douglas Behrens, Richard Eiszner, Jonathan Lombardo, Cailyn Reilly, and Megan Wood provided valuable research assistance. 1279 Published by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2012 1 Florida Law Review, Vol. 64, Iss. 5 [2012], Art. 4 1280 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 64 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. This Article concludes with some suggestions about how we might rethink patentable subject matter in light of America‘s first patents. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1281 I. INTERPRETING AMERICA‘S FIRST PATENTS ......................... 1285 A. Locating the Patents .................................................... 1286 B. Central Claiming and Ambiguous Patents .................. 1287 C. Finding Business Methods........................................... 1294 D. Insights from Interpreting Early Patents..................... 1296 1. Principles in English Common Law .................... 1297 2. Using Principles to Explain Inventions ................ 1304 II. EARLY PATENTS .................................................................. 1308 A. Technology Classes ..................................................... 1308 B. Exemplary and Interesting Patents ............................. 1311 C. Primitive Patents ......................................................... 1315 D. Measurement Devices.................................................. 1318 E. Methods Patents .......................................................... 1320 1. Business Methods................................................. 1320 2. Recipes ................................................................. 1324 F. Software Patents .......................................................... 1325 G. Implications ................................................................. 1326 III. THE ―MACHINE-OR-TRANSFORMATION‖ TEST .................... 1328 A. Testing the Historical Criticism .................................. 1330 B. Results ......................................................................... 1330 C. Implications ................................................................. 1333 1. Problems with the Basis for Machine or Transformation ..................................................... 1333 2. Identifying Business Methods .............................. 1334 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 1335 http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/4 2 Risch: America’s First Patents 2012] AMERICA‟S FIRST PATENTS 1281 INTRODUCTION Courts and commentators vigorously debate early American patent history because of a spotty documentary record.1 To fill in these gaps, scholars have examined the adoption of the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution, correspondence, dictionaries, as well as British and colonial case law.2 But there is one largely ignored body of information—the content of early patents themselves.3 While many debate what the Founders thought, no one asks what early inventors thought.4 This Article is the first comprehensive examination of how early inventors and their patents should inform our current thoughts about the patent system.5 To better understand our early patent history, we6 read every available patent issued prior to the institution of the ―modern‖ examination system in 1836, totaling nearly 2,500 handwritten patents. 1. See Adam Mossoff, Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents? Reevaluating the Patent “Privilege” in Historical Context, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 953, 977 (2007) (―One of the pressing problems with (...truncated)