Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan
United States Supreme Court
74 US (7 Wall.) 583 (1868)
Relevant factsFree
Edward Wilson developed several improvements to wool and cotton machinery over his career, and a witness named John Cooper contributed some input during that process, though the scope of Cooper's contribution was disputed. A party challenging the resulting patent's validity argued that Cooper should have been named as a co-inventor, which would have invalidated the patent as issued.
IssueFree
Whether a person who provides some suggestion or assistance to an inventor, without that contribution becoming part of the claimed invention itself, must be named as a co-inventor.