Seattle Calls a Patent Bluff and Wins
A federal judge rules that John Klein's insulation-pin patent was no invention at all—saving Seattle a payout that Portland and San Francisco had already made.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Judge Hanford, sitting in the United States district court, yesterday decided the damage suit of John Klein vs. The City of Seattle in favor of the city. Judge Hanford has had this case under advisement since August 24, when it was argued and submitted to him.
Klein sued the city for $3,000 damages for the alleged infringement of a patent right, because the city used 1,000 or 1,500 insulation pins alleged to be owned by Klein's patent. Before he commenced the suit against Seattle he had begun others against Portland and against the Willamette Falls Electric Company. The city of Portland compromised and paid him, and the Multnomah Falls Electric Company did the same for $1,500. He also compelled the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, and several Southern California cities, the Gamewell and several other companies, to purchase all their pins from him. That was the condition of affairs when Corporation Counsel Frank A. Steele took charge of the matter.
He searched the patent records of America and England and discovered similar devices to the one covered by Mr. Klein. Mr. Steele also made a trip to San Francisco and obtained some strong evidence there. At the trial it was clearly established by the evidence that the device had been in use before Mr. Klein had patented it. Mr. Steele's principal contention was that it was not a patentable invention, as it was not the result of inventive genius, but rather of mechanical skill. He further held that Klein was not the original inventor.
The court, in deciding the case, held that the insulating pin was not a patentable invention, because it was rather the work of a skilled mechanic than of an inventive genius. Mr. Steele in this case won a notable victory and saved the city a large sum of money.
“The court held that the insulating pin was not a patentable invention, because it was rather the work of a skilled mechanic than of an inventive genius.”
Patent demands against cities are a familiar story now: a rights-holder asks for payment, and a public body must decide whether to settle or fight. In 1894 Seattle's corporation counsel dug into prior art and won—a reminder that fights over patent claims and public money are older than the phrase 'patent troll.'
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.