Neilson v. Harford
151 ER 1266 (1841)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A scientific principle or law of nature is not patentable in the abstract, but a specific machine, apparatus, or process that provides a practical application of that principle is patentable subject matter.
Facts:
- Prior to James Neilson's invention, the common belief in iron manufacturing was that colder air blasts were more effective.
- Neilson discovered that preheating the air before blowing it into a furnace significantly improved efficiency, yielding more iron with less fuel.
- Neilson obtained a patent for a process that directed air through a heated "air-vessel or receptacle" situated between the blowing apparatus (bellows) and the furnace.
- The patent specification noted that the specific shape or form of this receptacle was immaterial to the invention.
- Harford and other iron manufacturers began using the hot-blast principle, sometimes with apparatuses different from a simple box, such as a network of heated pipes.
- Neilson's process enabled the use of cheaper coal and lower-grade iron ore, which had previously been uneconomical.
Procedural Posture:
- James Neilson, the patentee, sued Harford and others for patent infringement in the Court of Exchequer, a trial-level court.
- The defendants (Harford et al.) argued as a defense that Neilson's patent was invalid because it was an improper attempt to patent a scientific principle rather than a specific machine.
- The case was tried before the Court of Exchequer to determine the validity of the patent and whether infringement had occurred.
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 an unpatentable abstract principle when it describes applying a newly discovered natural phenomenon using a specified, yet broadly defined, mechanical apparatus?
Opinions:
Majority - Baron Parke
No. The patent does not claim a mere principle, but rather a patentable machine that embodies and applies that principle. The court must analyze the claim as if the principle itself were already well-known; the patentable invention is the specific mode of applying it through a mechanical apparatus. Neilson's invention is not the discovery that hot air works better, but the creation of the apparatus for its application—specifically, the interposition of a heated receptacle between the blowing apparatus and the furnace. Therefore, the patent is valid because it claims a machine, not the abstract principle of using hot air.
Concurring - Baron Alderson
The patent is for the use of an intermediate heated reservoir. The question of infringement then becomes a factual determination for the jury as to whether the defendant's apparatus, such as a long spiral pipe, constitutes a "reservoir" or a "colourable imitation of a reservoir." If it is not, then there is no infringement, as others are free to apply the same principle through means that do not use an intermediate reservoir as described.
Analysis:
This case established the fundamental legal distinction between an unpatentable abstract principle and a patentable practical application of that principle. Its reasoning, particularly the concept of treating the principle as if it were part of the prior art, became a cornerstone of patent eligibility law in both the UK and the United States. Later U.S. Supreme Court cases, including O'Reilly v. Morse and Mayo v. Prometheus, directly adopted this framework, requiring that a patent claim more than just a natural law combined with conventional or trivial steps. This decision ensures that laws of nature remain in the public domain while still incentivizing inventors to create tangible, useful applications of new discoveries.
Unlock the full brief for Neilson v. Harford