As we reflect on family, consider the following cases:
Inspiration for Inventing on Thanksgiving Day:
Shafer claims that he invented the subject matter of his patent and reduced it to practice November 24, 1921 (Thanksgiving Day). . . . [This was] the first time that his brother, who was a mechanic, and he, had the day off together, they devoted that morning to reducing to practice his discovery.
Brown Instrument Co v. Gen. Electric Co, 35 F. Supp. 29, 30 (E.D.N.Y. 1940), rev’d sub nom. Gen. Elec Co v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co, 118 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1941) (thermostat patent).
= = =
Protecting Children from Forced Adoption:
He was a research man prepared to devote his life to discoveries of value to industry. Under [his employment] contract he was, however, if he worked in another laboratory or for another manufacturer, required to assign his discoveries to appellee. This would effectively close the doors of employment to him. Until the end of the [contract term of three years] he was compelled either to work for appellee or turn over the children of his inventive genius to it. Such a contract conflicts with the public policy of the land, which is one that encourages inventions and discourages the exclusion of an employee from engaging in the gainful occupation for which he is particularly fitted for all time, anywhere in the United States.
Guth v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385, 388–89 (7th Cir. 1934).
= = =
It just sounds bad to terminally disclaim a child:
Although a terminal disclaimer does not conclusively show that a child patent involves the same cause of action as its parent, the terminal disclaimer is still very relevant to that inquiry.
SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, 884 F.3d 1160, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
= = =
As a Family, we are In it Together:
[T]he FRAND commitment applies to all members of that patent family, unless a specific exclusion has been made.
TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, CV 15-2370 JVS(DFMX), 2017 WL 6611635, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
= = =
I’ll buy some consonance for $250:
[T]he sibling patent did not maintain consonance [under Section 121], and therefore the safe harbor provision cannot apply, we hold [the claims] invalid.
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., 729 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
= = =
Sleeping in your Corset?:
They were presented to her for use. He imposed no obligation of secrecy, nor any condition or restriction whatever. . . . The donee of the steels used them for years for the purpose and in the manner designed by the inventor. . . . According to the testimony of the complainant, the invention was completed and put into use in 1855. The inventor slept on his rights for eleven years.
Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 337 (1881).
= = =
Patents & Divorce:
In a dissolution action, patents are subject to equitable distribution.
Teller v. Teller, 53 P.3d 240, 249 (Haw. 2002).
= = = =
[T]he patent fails to teach how the invention actually achieves lubriciousness.
Ritchie v. Phallix, Inc., 8:06-CV-2128-T-26TGW, 2007 WL 9723903, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2007).