DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

FLASH OF GENIUS

LEGAL METHODS

MS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE

PALAK RAWAT

Roll No. 2018059

ANUSHKA AGRAWAL

Roll No. 2018014

SEMESTER - I

Page 1 of 9
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Ms. Soma bhattacharge
madam who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic (Flash
of Genius), which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so
many new things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.

Page 2 of 9
PROJECT SUMMARY
In this project, we are going to show how rule which aroused in case of Bolton vs Baker was
used as a precedentin case of Barclay vs Penberthy.

Page 3 of 9
AIMS OF THE STUDY/SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
The aim of our study is to make people understand how the rule in Baker vs Bolton is used as
precedent in the case Barclay vs Penberthy.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Wide

Page 4 of 9
Contents
RULE IN BAKER v BOLTON ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE IN BAKER VS. BOLTON ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
DEATH DUE TO THE BREACH OF CONTRACT .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
COMPENSATION UNDER VARIOUS STATUTES ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT 1976 ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
STATUTORY MODIFICATIONS ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ENGLISH LAW ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
INDIAN LAW ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
DAMAGES RECOVERABLE ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
For Loss of Dependency: ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
BARCLAY v PENBERTHY, THE RULE IN BAKER v BOLTON AND THE ACTION FOR LOSS
OF SERVICES......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
II. DECISION IN BARCLAY v PENBERTHY ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
III ACTION FOR LOSS OF SERVICES ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A. Whether the Defendant Must Have Committed a ‘Wrong’ ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. Whether the ‘Wrong’ Must Have Been Done to the Employee or the Employer (or Both)
......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C. Whether the Action, If It Should Continue to Exist, Is Best Reconceptualised Error! Bookmark
not defined.
D. High Court’s Reasoning .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
E. Substantive Review ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
IV. TORT AND CRIME: HISTORY .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
V. THE POLICY OF THE HIGH COURT ON LAW REFORM ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VI. CONCLUSION.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Page 5 of 9
OBJECTIVE
The main objectives of this study is ;

 To understand the concept of patent laws and its evolution over time.
 To analyze cases related to patent grants and rights
 To study the circumstances that result in patent right violation and remedy provided.

RESEARCH QUESTION
1. Whether the patent rights were violated according to circumstances displayed in
movie?
2. Whether the patent laws in America are as popular as they were in eighties and
nineties?
3. Whether the patent laws in USA have evolved since 2008 or changes in laws?

LITERATURE REVIEW
PRIMARY SOURCE –
Book Titled – Flash of genius and other true stories of invention

By : John Seabrook, staff writer for the New Yorker.

Published by : St. Martin’s Press, 2008

SECONDARY SOURCE –
Movie – Flash of Genius” directed by – Marc Abraham

Cast --

 Greg Kinnear as Bob Kearns

 Lauren Graham as Phyllis Kearns
 Dermot Mulroney as Gil Pervick
 Alan Alda as Gregory Lawson

MOVIE REVIEW –

Page 6 of 9
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The nature of this study is-

 Descriptive Study
 Epalnatory Study
 Analytical Study

The mode of citation will be “ Oford Style of Citation ”

SCOPE OF STUDY

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Page 7 of 9
INTRODUCTION

The movie is based around a patent. “Flash of Genius“, starring Greg Kinnear, Lauren
Graham, Dermot Mulroney and Alan Alda, is the true story about an inventor Robert Kearns,
and his battle with the Big 3 of the Auto Industry in America – Ford, Chrysler and GM. The
story is based on the college professor cum inventor’s long struggle against the U.S.
automobile industry. As it turns out, he would dedicate nearly the rest of his life towards
fighting to receive recognition for his invention.
Back in 1967 Robert Kearns’ invention, the intermittent windshield wipers, which go on till
present day to become part of every car, is an invention that fills an area which researchers
had been working on for years. Though engineers at Ford had come up with several similar
designs, each one succumbed to some kind of flaw. What Robert Kearns came out with was a
system that used an electrical current to flow and fill a capacitor. When the charge reached a
certain voltage, it discharged and the wipers wiped. This idea suddenly struck him as he was
straining to drive through a drizzle one day and evidently hence the title – it was a ‘flash of
genius’. This system, though simplistic sounding, worked better than any of the other
designs that had been thought of till then. Buoyed by his success, he approached Ford in
order to license out his design to them. . What happens at this point is the crux of the issue.
Having applied for about his first patent (he would go on to file for about 30 patents) for his
wipers which paused for intervals set by the driver between wipes, making them especially
useful in light rains or mist, Robert Kearns is sure that his invention will be received well by
the automotive industry. However, after showing some initial interest in the invention, Ford
tells Kearns that they are already working on a similar invention, nonetheless, subject to some
conditions would like to take a look at it. Unknown to Kearns at that time, he was on the
verge of the next breakthrough in automotive technology – moving from electricity into
electronics.
After a series of demonstrations, Ford finally accepts Kearns into their wiper development
team. They also stated that the law required the disclosure of all the engineering of safety
items, including wipers and so he was required to show them the working of his intermittent
windshield wipers.
A little way down the line however he was told he was no longer required.
Come 1969, Ford releases a new ‘first’ in the industry – an intermittent windshield wiper
based on the same configuration of a transistor, a resistor and a capacitor as Kearns’.
After trying and subsequently failing to get an explanation from Ford, Kearns takes the
matter to the courts in 1978 for patent infringement. The movie goes on to show the
automotive industry (in 1982 he sued Chrysler as well) dangling large amounts of settlement

Page 8 of 9
money in front of him, however Kearns is determined to get justice and not just money.
Though he eventually wins the legal battles, they cost him his health and family, not to
mention huge amounts in legal proceedings (almost $10 million). In the Ford case, the jury
turned down Ford’s contention that it was an invalid patent because it contained no new
concepts and was an obvious next step. They finally hold that there was infringement,
however it was not wilful infringement. After some more litigation over the award to be
given, it was finally settled at $10.2 million. Chrysler ended up paying about $19 million.

Whether his main objective was to fight for inventors’ rights or to leave behind a legacy for
his kids, a Kearns corporation perhaps, it does appear that Robert Kearns was more than just
a ‘patent troll’ or only after licensing fees. (Patent trolls are entities which purchase/collect
patents in use or not in use and wait for opportunities to sue for infringement by another
entity – trolls nowadays are often corporations put together for this sole purpose)

Interestingly, the title of the movie leaves a lingering doubt as to complete veracity of the
movie, as “Flash of Genius” takes its title from the 1941 landmark case of Cuno Engineering
Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp. where J. William O. Douglas uses the phrase to refer to the
criteria necessary for obtaining a patent. This doctrine was subsequently repudiated in 1952
by a revision to the Patent Code. Even in KSR v Teleflex, there is no mention of the
significance, if any, of a ‘flash of genius’.

Page 9 of 9