A Very Special Patent Case
Armen demanded I post on patents, since I'm the nerdy "IP Guy" he keeps hidden in the corner. Well fine, he gives me space on the blog he started, it seems only fair.
However, he wanted me to post on the peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich patent that became all the rage of internet and "look how stupid the patent system is" discussions (side note: the patent appears fine and valid to me, and rightly granted, as Smuckers really solved a tough problem with their new sandwich).
Instead, I'd like to discuss a special case, Lariscey v. United States, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The case features intrigue (employer tries to steal patented invention!), an anti-hero of invention (the aptly named Earl Jason Lariscey), and a very special invention that likely saves the lives of numerous men in Iraq on a weekly basis. The case also implicates trade secret law (a favorite of mine), and my favorite aspect of property... takings.
To begin, consider the overview provided by LexisNexis, in all their brilliance. Particularly inane statements appear in bold. Jaw-droppingly awesome statements appear in bolded italics. Things which are simply wrong appear in italics.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed suit alleging the appropriation without just compensation of plaintiff's invention of a metal cutting jig saw. Plaintiff invented the saw when, during the course of his employment through a prisoner work program making helmets, he discovered the difficulty in cutting metal. Plaintiff invented the saw on his own initiative, working in his cell during leisure time. Plaintiff appealed an order of the trial court that granted summary judgment to defendant. The court reversed and remanded. The court held that plaintiff had a property interest in the saw. The court found that plaintiff did not forfeit his trade secret or the possibility of payment for his invention through the demonstration of the saw at the prison. The court held that although the saw was made with scraps of defendant's metal, the discovery belonged to plaintiff because it was invented within the scope and purpose of plaintiff's employment.
Ok, what does this overview tell us?
First, in bold: metal is hard to cut! Wow, it heartens me that LexisNexis tells lawyers these things, because I bet they did not know otherwise. So you ask, what magical metal was this? Kevlar. Wait - you say. I'm a law student with an Intricacies of Political Theory Applied to Basket Weaving degree, and I'm pretty sure Kevlar is not a metal. You'd be correct. It's a fiber.
Second, in bolded italics: this man surely served as the model for Macguyver. Who are you Earl Jason Lariscey? What were you in for? I could probably look, but I bet you'd find out and kick my ass. Regardless, I'm sorry that the other inmates called you "Fred Flintstone" (read the case on Lexis or Westlaw, not available on FindLaw). You should have cut them with your Kevlar cutting saw. I know this would have landed you in the clink for even longer, but they deserved for not recognizing your genius. And you made this thing out of scrap metal? Man, if they had given you a rubberband, I bet you could have built a Howitzer. Needless to say, you are awesome. Just awesome.
Third, in italics: this is completely incorrect. If it were correct, the employer would have an implied license or shop right in the invention. But in fact, Judge Newman found that the saw got invented in Mr. Lariscey's own time, and that's why the device belonged to him.
So, what do we know so far? Lexis overviews are full of lies (see Kevlar), tales of heroism (see our federal prisoner Macguyver) and flagrant mistakes about the law that will lead you to malpractice (see shop right) [note: Dear LexisNexis, I will stop saying bad but true things about your fine services in exchange for a large four to six digit number of Lexis points, which I will use on books and a new basketball. Witness how easily I am bought, and the press you coudl get from this website! Amazing!]
Anyway, I need to get back to reading, but basically Mr. Lariscey avoids the cruel taunts of his fellow prisoners, threats from the wardens, a transfer to menial duty when he tries to claim his invention, the filing of a pro se complaint before the Claims Court, numerous denials of counsel, and then wins a 3-0 reversal from the federal circuit, thereby securing a trade secret and hopefully a patent in a marvelous invention that no doubt is saving numerous lives as we speak! Bravo!
--
PS: Prior to the saw that Lariscey made from scrap metal, the government was shopping for saws from contractors. Their options: a $30,000 sonic saw that did not work and a $350,000 "laser" saw that the vendor would not guarantee would work. And Lariscey used scrap metal! SCRAP METAL!! In his cell! With no tools!
Coda: Surely, Earl Jason Lariscey, you are one of the twentieth century's great inventors, and I will recognize you as such, even if no else will. When I cash in as an IP lawyer, I hope to endow a scholarship in your name for that punk kid with a knack for hard sciences. America needs more people like that.
However, he wanted me to post on the peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich patent that became all the rage of internet and "look how stupid the patent system is" discussions (side note: the patent appears fine and valid to me, and rightly granted, as Smuckers really solved a tough problem with their new sandwich).
Instead, I'd like to discuss a special case, Lariscey v. United States, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The case features intrigue (employer tries to steal patented invention!), an anti-hero of invention (the aptly named Earl Jason Lariscey), and a very special invention that likely saves the lives of numerous men in Iraq on a weekly basis. The case also implicates trade secret law (a favorite of mine), and my favorite aspect of property... takings.
To begin, consider the overview provided by LexisNexis, in all their brilliance. Particularly inane statements appear in bold. Jaw-droppingly awesome statements appear in bolded italics. Things which are simply wrong appear in italics.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed suit alleging the appropriation without just compensation of plaintiff's invention of a metal cutting jig saw. Plaintiff invented the saw when, during the course of his employment through a prisoner work program making helmets, he discovered the difficulty in cutting metal. Plaintiff invented the saw on his own initiative, working in his cell during leisure time. Plaintiff appealed an order of the trial court that granted summary judgment to defendant. The court reversed and remanded. The court held that plaintiff had a property interest in the saw. The court found that plaintiff did not forfeit his trade secret or the possibility of payment for his invention through the demonstration of the saw at the prison. The court held that although the saw was made with scraps of defendant's metal, the discovery belonged to plaintiff because it was invented within the scope and purpose of plaintiff's employment.
Ok, what does this overview tell us?
First, in bold: metal is hard to cut! Wow, it heartens me that LexisNexis tells lawyers these things, because I bet they did not know otherwise. So you ask, what magical metal was this? Kevlar. Wait - you say. I'm a law student with an Intricacies of Political Theory Applied to Basket Weaving degree, and I'm pretty sure Kevlar is not a metal. You'd be correct. It's a fiber.
Second, in bolded italics: this man surely served as the model for Macguyver. Who are you Earl Jason Lariscey? What were you in for? I could probably look, but I bet you'd find out and kick my ass. Regardless, I'm sorry that the other inmates called you "Fred Flintstone" (read the case on Lexis or Westlaw, not available on FindLaw). You should have cut them with your Kevlar cutting saw. I know this would have landed you in the clink for even longer, but they deserved for not recognizing your genius. And you made this thing out of scrap metal? Man, if they had given you a rubberband, I bet you could have built a Howitzer. Needless to say, you are awesome. Just awesome.
Third, in italics: this is completely incorrect. If it were correct, the employer would have an implied license or shop right in the invention. But in fact, Judge Newman found that the saw got invented in Mr. Lariscey's own time, and that's why the device belonged to him.
So, what do we know so far? Lexis overviews are full of lies (see Kevlar), tales of heroism (see our federal prisoner Macguyver) and flagrant mistakes about the law that will lead you to malpractice (see shop right) [note: Dear LexisNexis, I will stop saying bad but true things about your fine services in exchange for a large four to six digit number of Lexis points, which I will use on books and a new basketball. Witness how easily I am bought, and the press you coudl get from this website! Amazing!]
Anyway, I need to get back to reading, but basically Mr. Lariscey avoids the cruel taunts of his fellow prisoners, threats from the wardens, a transfer to menial duty when he tries to claim his invention, the filing of a pro se complaint before the Claims Court, numerous denials of counsel, and then wins a 3-0 reversal from the federal circuit, thereby securing a trade secret and hopefully a patent in a marvelous invention that no doubt is saving numerous lives as we speak! Bravo!
--
PS: Prior to the saw that Lariscey made from scrap metal, the government was shopping for saws from contractors. Their options: a $30,000 sonic saw that did not work and a $350,000 "laser" saw that the vendor would not guarantee would work. And Lariscey used scrap metal! SCRAP METAL!! In his cell! With no tools!
Coda: Surely, Earl Jason Lariscey, you are one of the twentieth century's great inventors, and I will recognize you as such, even if no else will. When I cash in as an IP lawyer, I hope to endow a scholarship in your name for that punk kid with a knack for hard sciences. America needs more people like that.
Labels: Court Cases
posted by Tom Fletcher at 8:15 PM
2 Comments:
I AM JASON LARISCEYS' SISTER, I AM SO GLAD TO SEE SOMEONE ELSE CAN SEE THE SMART AND INTELLIGENT MAN THAT HE IS. HE IS A HERO IN MY SIGHT AND WAS TREATED WRONG BY OUR ABOVE REPROACH GOVERNMENT. OUR GOVERNMENT IS BEYOND CORRUPT AND RUTHLESS.
THNK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT AND STATING THE TRUTH EXACTLY AS IT HAPPENED.
I am a child of Jason Earl Lariscey. It looks like the government would have paid his children since he never took care of them. He never paid a dime toward any type of medical care or schooling. Choose your words more carefully. Hero is not a word to throw around so lightly. It would have been great to be able to go to College without working 2 jobs.
Post a Comment
<< Home