Kearns v Auto Industry: The Invention of the Intermittent Windshield Wiper and Infringement by the Big Three

1. Kearns v Auto Industry: The Invention of the Intermittent Windshield Wiper and Infringement by the Big Three Sarah Scott IEOR 190G CET UC Berkeley College of Engineering 2/2/2009

2. Background • Robert W. Kearns – Engineer who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. • First patent filed on Dec 1 1964, issued in Feb 1971

3. Patent #3564374 – Dec 1964 • System where in which the wiper can be used continuously or intermittently • Transistors control both the intermittent and continuous modes • Intermittent mode timing is controlled by a RC circuit

4. Patent #3602790 – Aug 1971 • Uses a three brush motor • One brush will cause low speed and high torque and another will cause high speed and low torque • Switching between the high speed brushes operates the wipers intermittently at high speeds • The low speed brushes bring the wipers to the park position

5. Patent 4544870 – Sept 1982 • The time between wipes is controlled by the speed of the descent of the wiper • The speed and intermittent motion are both controlled by transistors are connected to the motor • The system can be manually controlled by the driver • The motor can be electodynamically braked to reverse the current and return the wipers to the parked position

6. Legal Cases • Sued Ford in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982 • Ford lost, although the court ruled the infringement was non-deliberate • Ford settled for $10.2 Million • Chrysler was ordered to pay $18.2 Million with interest • Chrysler appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case

7. Automotive Defense • For a patent to be valid, it must meet standards of originality and novelty • Auto makers said that Kearns invention as not “non-obvious” • Since the system had no new components, it did not meet this standard • RC relaxation oscillators similar to what Kearns used in his invention were common examples in basic electronics textbooks

8. Automotive Defense • Chrysler had already produced parallel windshield wiper technology in 1955 • Ford engineers had been working on electric (rather than vacuum) windshield wipers since 1957 • Engineers from Ford testified that they had created a similar system before the patent

9. Kerns Offence • Kerns argued that his combination of existing components is what made the device novel • In 1963 Kerns demoed the device for Ford, but they were uninterested, yet they came out with a similar device after this

10. Other Auto Makers • Kearns also sued GM and Mercedes • Kearns represented himself in the Chrysler trail • GM and Mercedes lawyers made the litigation so complicated that Kearns’ charges were dismissed in lower court

11. Jury • In the Ford case, the jury sided with Kearns in the issue of patent infringement • Kearns seeks $325 Million in royalties plus interest • The jury could not agree on a fair compensation, and the judge issued a mistrial in this area of the ruling

12. Issues • Can a layman jury adequately rule in patent cases? • In the Ford case, Ford made the argument that the patent was invalid • How well can a layman juror identify what is ‘obvious’ • Judges are able to question witness and re-read transcripts and have legal training