Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.
United States Supreme Court
261 U.S. 45, 43 S. Ct. 322, 67 L. Ed. 523 (1923)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
William Eibel (plaintiff) obtained a patent for a means of increasing the speed of papermaking machines without adversely affecting the quality of the paper. More specifically, the claimed improvement increased the speed of the paper stock by harnessing the force of gravity. Soon after the invention became known, others in the papermaking industry began calibrating their machines to match it. Eibel brought an infringement action against the Minnesota & Ontario Paper Company (defendant). The federal district court found that the patent was valid and issued an injunction. The circuit court of appeals reversed, holding that the improvement consisted only of the obvious application of a known principle (i.e., gravity) and did not merit patent protection. Eibel appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taft, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.