Merrill v. Yeomans
94 U.S. 568, 24 L. Ed. 235 (1876)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a patent claim describes a 'new manufacture' of a product 'by treating' it in a specific manner, the patent is construed as protecting only the process of manufacture, not the resulting product itself. To receive patent protection for a product regardless of its method of creation, the patentee must explicitly and unambiguously claim the product as the invention.
Facts:
- Joshua Merrill obtained a patent in May 1869 for an invention related to deodorizing heavy hydrocarbon oils.
- Merrill's patent application described in detail a new process and apparatus for distilling the oils to remove their offensive odors.
- The patent also described the resulting product: a deodorized oil suitable for lubricating and other purposes.
- Yeomans and others were oil dealers who bought and sold a deodorized hydrocarbon oil.
- The oil sold by Yeomans was nearly identical to the product resulting from Merrill's process.
- However, Yeomans did not manufacture oil; they simply resold oil that had been produced by a process different from the one Merrill had patented.
Procedural Posture:
- Joshua Merrill (complainant) sued Yeomans and others (defendants) in the U.S. Circuit Court for patent infringement.
- Following an adverse judgment in the Circuit Court, Merrill (appellant) appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a patent claim for a 'new manufacture of the deodorized heavy hydrocarbon oils... by treating them substantially as is hereinbefore described' cover the resulting oil product itself, or is it limited to the specific process of manufacturing that oil?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Miller
No, the patent claim is limited to the specific process of manufacturing the oil, not the product itself. The court must interpret a patent's scope based on the patentee's formal claim. The claim here is for a 'new manufacture... by treating them substantially as is hereinbefore described.' The most natural reading of this language is that the inventor is claiming the new mode of manufacturing—the process. To interpret it as a claim for the product would render the phrase 'by treating them...' superfluous, which violates principles of legal construction. Furthermore, the rest of the patent's specification focuses almost exclusively on the apparatus and the steps of the process, reinforcing the conclusion that the process, not the product, was the intended invention being claimed. While patents are construed liberally, the law requires precision from inventors to provide clear notice to the public of the scope of the monopoly. Because Yeomans did not use Merrill's process, they did not infringe the patent.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clifford
Yes, the patent claim, when properly construed, covers the new manufactured product. The invention is for the described new manufacture (the oil) and not merely for the process of creating it.
Analysis:
This case underscores the paramount importance of precise claim drafting in patent law. It establishes that courts will narrowly construe ambiguous claims and will not extend patent protection beyond what is clearly stated. The decision places a significant burden on inventors to explicitly differentiate between a process claim and a product-by-process claim. As a result, patent applicants are incentivized to file separate, distinct claims for a new process and a new product to ensure comprehensive protection. This ruling protects the public and subsequent innovators by preventing patentees from vaguely claiming a monopoly over a product that others may discover how to create through different, non-infringing methods.
Unlock the full brief for Merrill v. Yeomans