Tilghman v. Proctor
102 U.S. 707, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2081, 26 L. Ed. 279 (1881)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent for a new and useful manufacturing process covers the process itself and is not limited to the specific apparatus or conditions described in the patent's specification. Infringement occurs when another party uses substantially the same process to achieve the same result, even with a different apparatus or minor variations.
Facts:
- In 1853, Richard Tilghman discovered a process for decomposing animal and vegetable fats into fat acids and glycerine.
- The process involved mixing the fat with water and subjecting it to high temperature and high pressure in a closed vessel, preventing the water from turning to steam.
- Tilghman obtained a U.S. patent in 1854 claiming 'the manufacturing of fat acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure.'
- The patent specification described a preferred apparatus using a coil of pipe heated to 612°F, but also stated that 'any convenient vessel' could be used and that the ideal temperature could be determined by experimentation.
- William Proctor and James Gamble began using a process to decompose fats that also used water, high heat (around 310°F), and high pressure.
- Proctor and Gamble's process differed from Tilghman's preferred method by using a large boiler instead of a coil of pipe, introducing heat via super-heated steam instead of an external furnace, and adding a small amount of lime (4-7%) to the fat and water mixture.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Tilghman sued William Proctor and James Gamble in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of his 1854 patent.
- The Circuit Court dismissed Tilghman's complaint, finding that the defendants' process did not infringe upon the patent.
- Tilghman, as the appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Proctor and Gamble are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a patent for a chemical process, which describes one specific form of apparatus as an example, infringed by the use of a different apparatus that employs the same underlying chemical process with minor variations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bradley
Yes. A patent for a process covers the underlying method itself, not merely the specific apparatus described to carry it out. The defendants' use of a different apparatus, a lower temperature, and an additional catalytic agent does not allow them to evade the patent, because their operation is fundamentally based on the patentee's novel process. The court distinguished a patentable 'process'—a useful art involving chemical action or the application of a power of nature—from an unpatentable 'principle' or scientific fact. Tilghman did not patent the scientific fact that water, heat, and pressure could decompose fat; he patented the specific process of applying those elements to achieve a useful result. The defendants' variations are either equivalents or minor improvements, and the use of an improvement on a patented process still constitutes infringement of the underlying patent.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in U.S. patent law for its clear distinction between a patentable process and an unpatentable principle. By upholding Tilghman's broad process claim, the Court strengthened the protection for inventors of new methods, ensuring they are not limited to the specific machinery they first envision. This precedent prevents competitors from making superficial changes to an apparatus to evade infringement, thereby encouraging groundbreaking discoveries in manufacturing and chemical arts. The decision solidifies the idea that the inventor of a new 'art' is entitled to protection for that art itself, provided they describe at least one practical way to implement it.
