utility
Defined in 3 dictionaries — Case Law, U.S. Code, Anderson (1889)
Definitions from Case Law
United States Supreme Court
The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.
Defined by the Supreme Court in - Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966).
United States Code
26 U.S.C. § 48 — for purposes of this section
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “utility” means the owner or operator of an electrical transmission or distribution system which is subject to the regulatory authority of a State or political subdivision thereof, any agency or instrumentality of the United States, a public service or public utility commission or other similar body of any State or political subdivision thereof, or the governing or ratemaking body of an electric cooperative.
42 U.S.C. § 2304 — in this section
The term “utility” means any electrical distribution system, any natural gas distribution system, any public transportation system, or any public communication system, and any fixtures, equipment, or other property appropriate to the operation, maintenance or repair of the foregoing.
47 U.S.C. § 224 — as used in this section (2 versions over time)
The term “utility” means any person who is a local exchange carrier or an electric, gas, water, steam, or other public utility, and who owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for any wire communications. Such term does not include any railroad, any person who is cooperatively organized, or any person owned by the Federal Government or any State.
A Dictionary of Law
William C. Anderson · 1889
Usefulness; applicability to a beneficial use. A valid patent is characterized by both utility and invention. "While less evidence, where the utility is great, may establish invention, yet great utility may result from changes in devices which embrace no invention." In an action for infringement the defense of lack of utility will not be sustained unless there is the clearest evidence that the invention is utterly frivolous and worthless. The fact that the defendant used the invention is an argument against such defense. See further Invention; Novelty; Patent, 3; Use, 1, Useful.