Application of John O. Hruby, Jr Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A design for a water fountain, consisting only of moving water, is a patentable “article of manufacture.” The court rejected arguments that the design was too fleeting or merely an effect, focusing instead on its constant, reproducible overall appearance.
Legal Significance: This case expanded the definition of “article of manufacture” for design patents to include non-tangible, dynamic forms, provided they have a consistent and reproducible overall appearance. It established that designs embodied in fluid media are patentable subject matter.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The appellant, John O. Hruby, Jr., filed four design patent applications for ornamental water fountains. The claimed design in each application consisted solely of the specific, reproducible shape and pattern created by water in motion, as projected from a fountain apparatus. The drawings depicted the water’s configuration, while the mechanical components, such as the nozzle and catch basin, were shown in broken lines and were not part of the claimed design. The Patent Office examiner rejected the claims, and the Board of Appeals affirmed, on the sole ground that a design composed entirely of moving water does not constitute an “article of manufacture” as required by the design patent statute, 35 U.S.C. § 171. The Board reasoned that the water pattern was a “fleeting product” or an “effect” of the mechanical apparatus, rather than a distinct article.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an ornamental design for a water fountain, which is composed entirely of water in motion and exists only during the operation of a mechanical apparatus, a patentable “article of manufacture” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 171?
Yes. A design for a water fountain composed of moving water is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is an ornamental design for a water fountain, which is composed entirely of water in motion and exists only during the operation of a mechanical apparatus, a patentable “article of manufacture” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 171?
Conclusion
This decision significantly broadened the scope of patentable subject matter for design Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
Legal Rule
An ornamental design may be embodied in a fluid, dynamic medium, such Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the statutory term "article of manufacture" and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exce
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A design for a water fountain, where the design is the