eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)
"What are the implications of the legal case NEW PROCESS FERMENTATION Co.
v.
MAUS and others for the biotechnology industry?"
The 1887 court case of New Process Fermentation Co.
v.
Maus and others was an 8-0 decision, where the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the ruling of the lower court, finding in favor of the New Process Fermentation Company.
The patent in question, granted on May 20, 1879, related to a process of fermentation, specifically a method of fermenting beer and clarifying it by stopping up the bung-holes of the casks and allowing the carbonic acid gas to escape in another way.
According to the court's ruling, the process of fermentation is more important than the apparatus used to carry it out, and a patent can be valid even if the apparatus is old as long as the process is new and produces a new result.
The case New Process Fermentation Co.
v.
Maus has been cited in various legal resources and databases, including Cornell Law School's Supreme Court collection and Ballotpedia.
A patent holder has the right to exclusively have their beer fermented or clarified by a specific process, as long as the process is new and produces a new result.
The court's decision in this case established the idea that a process or method of making beer could be patented, as long as it produced a new result.
The New Process Fermentation Company was an Illinois corporation that brought the suit against Magdalena Maus and her relatives for alleged infringement of a patent granted to George Bartholomae as assignee of Leonard Meller and Hofmann.
The patent in question, granted on May 20, 1879, was for an "improvement in processes for making beer".
The case was argued on May 9, 1887, and the decision was made on May 27, 1887, with the court reversing the ruling of the lower court.
The court's ruling also emphasized the importance of the process of fermentation over the apparatus used to carry it out, stating that even if the apparatus is old, the patent can still be valid if the process is new and produces a new result.
The case was decided in an 8-0 decision, with all Supreme Court justices agreeing with the court's ruling.
The court's decision in this case has implications for the biotechnology industry, as it establishes the idea that methods of making beer can be patented, and that the process of fermentation can be more important than the apparatus used to carry it out.
eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)