BLAZING EARLY HISTORY OF THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE: FEATURING DR. THORNTON’S FIERY SPEECH TO THE REDCOATS, AND THE GREAT CONFLAGRATIONS OF THE 1800s

IRA COHEN, B.A., J.D., LL.M.

Next came the Patent laws. These began in England in 1624; and, in this country, with the adoption of our constitution. Before then, any man might instantly use what another had invented; so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this; secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things.”1 (Emphasis added.)

Abraham Lincoln

For well over two centuries, the essential responsibility of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 2 has neither altered nor faltered, to wit: To promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.

Congress established the USPTO to issue patents and trademarks (and service marks) on behalf of the federal government.3 In 1802, the Patent Office began as a separate and distinct bureau, within the Department of State, and its clerk was dubbed the “Superintendent of Patents.” The revised patent laws of 1836, inter alia, reorganized the Patent Office and formally denominated the lead official as “Commissioner of Patents.” Later, in a game of governmental “musical chairs,” the Patent Office shifted over from the Department of State to the Department of Interior in 1849. Subsequently, in 1925, it was transferred to the Department of Commerce—where it remains to this day. The name was changed to the Patent and Trademark Office (1975) and, finally, changed to its current incarnation as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (2000).4

Almost 165 years ago, on April 6, 1858, Abraham Lincoln delivered his first lecture, entitled “Discoveries and Inventions,” before the Young Men’s Association of Bloomington, Illinois. About nine years earlier, in 1849, Lincoln, himself an amateur inventor, had received United States Letters Patent No. 6,469, for a “Manner of Buoying Vessels.” Honest Abe remains, to date, the only U.S. president ever to hold a patent.

Lincoln’s antebellum choice of words regarding patents may well be viewed, in retrospect, as prophetic. That is because, during the 19th century, the Patent Office was plagued by not one but three disastrous fires (transpiring in 1814, 1836, and 1877, respectively) which, directly or indirectly, served to shape the course of its long and illustrious history.

Introduction

The system of patents in England traced its roots back to the early medieval period. By the 1500s, the English monarchs ordinarily would grant letters patent to favored persons, or those ready, willing, and able to pay for the monopoly granted.5 Not surprisingly, the power was used, and abused, to make money for the Crown6; in response, the English courts started to make rulings which served to delimit the monarch’s arbitrary and capricious issuance of patents.

Eventually, James I of England (1566-1625), the first “King of Great Britain,” was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. That guiding principle then was embedded into the Statute of Monopolies under which Parliament restricted the Crown›s power.7

During Colonial times here in America, local inventors also had a stream to travel down to obtain patents; the process was navigated by means of petitions submitted to the colony’s legislature. In that vein, it appears that, as long ago as 1641, Samuel Winslow, a resident of Massachusetts, was granted the first patent in North America, for a new salt-producing process, as issued by the Massachusetts General Court.8

As for America’s staunch Revolutionary War ally, France, that country’s modern-day patenting system came into being roughly around the same time as the American version, during the French Revolution in 1791.9 Notably, patents were granted without examination, inasmuch as an inventor’s right was considered as derived from natural law. Unlike the United States, however, on the continent, the Parisian patent costs were very high (ranging from 500 to 1,500 French francs).

Admittedly, however, it was England’s Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the English legal system relating to patents that formed the solid groundwork for patent law in common-law- based nations including, but not limited to, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Albeit the statute proscribed many royalist monopolies, it did expressly preserve the authority to issue “letters patent” for inventions of new manufacture for a period of up to 14 years.

It was founding father (and later, president) James Madison who set the stage for American innovation literally for generations to come.10 In Madison’s view, the right to intellectual property was predicated upon the philosophy of natural rights, and under the “labor” theory of property, to wit, a person had a right to what he produced with his own labor, whether physical or mental in nature.

During the Constitutional Convention, on Aug. 18, 1787, Madison proposed that Congress be empowered “to encourage, by proper premiums & provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.” The need for a federal patenting system, as opposed to a crazy patch-quilt of state regimes, was already well-understood. The so-called Committee of Detail took Madison’s proposal, combined it with recommendations by Madison and Charles Pinckney for literary copyright protections, and conjured up the now-familiar Copyright and Patent Clause:

“[The Congress shall have power] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

The Convention approved the clause unanimously without further discussion.11

In January of 1790, President George Washington delivered his first State of the Union address. Spring arrived and, a week before founding father Benjamin Franklin died, President George Washington stamped his imprimatur on the legislative bill which laid the foundations of the modern American patent system on the 10th day of April of that year.

The American patenting system, for the first time, recognized an inventor’s legal right to profit from his own invention. Thus, the law awarded inventors a piece of the patent pie as if it were the fruits of a mental harvest and, thereby, encouraged future innovation by protecting the same as a private property right (albeit for a limited, specified period.)

Under earlier (foreign) systems, the inventors might be granted privileges at the whim and caprice of the monarch or, in lieu thereof, by special legislative enactment. To illustrate, in 1421, Filippo Brunelleschi, a Florentine architect, was afforded a monopoly for a crane system for transporting marble. Two decades later, John of Utynam, a Flemish glassmaker, was granted a 20-year English patent relative to the art of stained-glass manufacture. The 15th century also witnessed the passing, by the Senate in Renaissance Venice, in 1474, of what many scholars deem to be the first true patent law.12

Fast-forward a tad over 300 years. The neophyte American experiment in liberty and democracy was bustling with developments and events.13 On or about April 15, 1790, Thomas Jefferson sent two copies of the Act of 1790 to the Governors of the dozen states that had ratified the Constitution:

“I have the honor to send you herein enclosed two copies duly authenticated of the Act to promote the progress of the useful arts, and of being with sentiments of the most perfect respect, Your Excellency’s most obedient & most humble servant, Thomas Jefferson.”14

Business in the patent market, in 1790, was not brisk. Indeed, only three patents in total were granted the entire year.

“From April to July they awaited a successful applicant. When he came at last, the three Cabinet officers—Jefferson, Knox, and Randolph—sat in solemn dignity to determine that Samuel Hopkins was entitled to a patent for his new method of making potash and pearl ash.”15

Thus, the very first U.S. patent was granted, on July 31st, to Mr. Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford, Vermont. Hopkins’ invention was an improvement in the making of potash (a substance derived from the ash of burned plant matter) which, in turn, was utilized to make soap and other useful consumer items.

In order to handle the eventual influx of patent applications, the Patent Board Commission of the United States was formed during that same year, comprised of only three Members, to wit: U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson,16 U.S. Secretary of War Henry Knox,17 and U.S. Attorney General Edmund Randolph.18

The Hopkins’ patent boasted a few additional novelties or trivial technical and procedural factoids worth mentioning. No formal process for examination had been yet devised or prescribed. So, the patent initially was reviewed by none other than Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, and himself an inventor of sorts (e.g., his portable desk, invented in 1775). Once done with his study of the matter at hand, Jefferson (sometimes referred to as the “First Patent Examiner”) passed the Hopkins patent application along to the Secretary of War for his review and then obtained signatures from the Attorney General and, finally, from President Washington himself.19

Under this infant patenting process, allegedly patentable inventions would be evaluated on merit and originality. During that inaugural year, only two more patent applications were received, however, the pair of which were issued after careful deliberation and collection of more “John Hancocks.” The applications and, thus, patent protections, were a great bargain, as they only set back the applicant about $4.00. Still quantifiably modest, business soon started to pick up on the American patent scene.

At some point in or around 1791, as the collection of miniaturized patent models20 mushroomed, and the stacks of papers mounted, Jefferson and his colleagues evidently came to the realization that that the examination of patents should not be foisted upon the already pre-occupied members of the U.S. Cabinet. The sparks of American ingenuity and the flame of inventive spirits, though grand traits in the overall scheme of things, were beginning to inundate Jefferson’s office. Jefferson had good cause to exclaim that: “the patent act has given a spring to invention beyond my comprehension.”21

The Patent Law was revised in 1793, and a simple registration system was ushered into place. The Inventor-Applicant who submitted a model, swore that the invention was original, and paid a fee of $30.00 (approximately $899.38 in 2023 dollars), could count on a patent being granted. And the Honorable Messrs. Jefferson, Hopkins, and Randolph soon were to be let off the hook, free once again to attend more pressing matters of state.

In 1793, the changes to the law meant, among other things, that such matters were placed squarely, and exclusively, on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. As the flood of applications for patents continued, further streamlining and organization became both necessary and desirable. The Patent Board Commission was disbanded and replaced by a Clerk in the office of the U.S. Department of State.

Accordingly, by that time, all patent examining duties were reassigned to a single State Department clerk, inasmuch as the Patent Office was not formed until nine years later in 1802.22 At present, the federal governmental organ that handles such duties employs over 10,000 people and has issued, in total, in excess of ten million patents both to American citizens and foreign nationals. As of February of 2023, USPTO has issued more than 11.5 million U.S. Letters Patents.

After James Madison23 took office as the second U.S. Secretary of State (1801-1809), under President Jefferson, he pushed for Congress to set up a separate Patent Office, but the lawmakers declined the proposal. Undaunted, Madison figured out a workable alternative. Instead, he created a Patent Office within the State Department which he headed. In 1800, the State Department, including the Patent Office, was housed temporarily in the same building as the U.S. Treasury Office.

In May of 1802, President Jefferson appointed William Thornton, a close friend of Madison, as the Patent Clerk, at a salary of $1,400 per year, to take charge of the burgeoning business of patent review. During one period, Thornton was paid $2,000 a year as the “Superintendent” of Patents24, at the same time acting as justice of the peace (being entitled to certain fees), a commissioner of bankruptcy, and a member of the levy court. Thus, Thornton was the first person to have official charge over U.S. patents, but his greatest impacts on the Patent Office were still down the road a piece.

To be sure, Dr. William Thornton (1759-1828), was a bona fide exemplar of an early American “Renaissance Man.” A civil engineer by profession, Thornton was a true polymath, not to mention a medical doctor, and an architect. He had designed the original U.S. Capitol building and was, himself, an inventor. As the first Superintendent of the Patent Office, he was, by most accounts, a deeply devoted government servant. Though it has been said that Congress paid him far too little, and grossly underfunded and understaffed his office, Thornton, along with his wife Anna Maria, dutifully copied patents at home in their own free time.

Secretary of State Madison urged Congress to give Thornton money for his Patent Office work. Moreover, a physical working space would be required.

In 1810, Thornton moved the patent models, and the patent papers into a portion of “Blodgett’s Hotel,” a building that had been purchased, at a bargain basement price, by the federal government, located on the north side of E street, between Seventh and Eighth streets. Despite the name, it was not a hotel. The Patent Office occupied the east end and shared the building with the U.S. Post Office.25 The United States Patent Office and the Post Office remained in this building until the Second Great Fire which occurred in 1836. (See discussion, infra.)

Today, the building would be found in the Penn Quarter (Chinatown) of Washington, D.C. In 1800, the U.S. Theatre moved into the edifice. Later, and still to this day, the building on the property became the Hotel Morocco, situated at 700 F Street NW, a stone’s throw from the National Portrait Gallery and the U.S. Navy Memorial Plaza.

Blodgett’s Hotel previously was the largest privately-owned structure in Washington; it had been constructed by Samuel Blodgett, Jr. (1757-1814), a merchant and Massachusetts native, as part of a bizarre lottery scheme to pay for public buildings in Washington. The “hotel,” in fact, was to be the lottery’s grand prize, having been designed by James Hoban (1758-1831), the same architect who designed The White House. The lottery scam, however, turned more into Blodgett’s blunder, and Blodgett not only lost the shirt off his back but ended up in a debtor’s prison.26 After the fact, the federal government gleefully took over the building and slated it to be utilized for U.S. government offices.

Thornton’s job was by no means an easy one and he appears to have been sorely underpaid. In that regard, he did not always hide his true feelings about his health, the less-than-plum nature of the position, his lack of compensation, and the thought of getting a new “situation” (job); indeed, he was not beyond petitioning then-President Jefferson for aid and assistance, as he did, in the mournful letter below penned on May 8, 1812 (prior to the First Great Patent Office Fire of 1814):

I have been for six months past much affected by symptoms of palsy at one time nearly speechless, and almost comatose; several times since exceedingly affected, & scarcely able to move my hands, & now my feet begin to be affected also; I am electrified and rubbed with vitriolic Ether almost daily, & am under a Course of Medicines, but I begin almost to despair of recovery; unless I can change my situation; for my severe Duties confine me very much. The Patents have increased exceedingly, and produce now nearly $7000 per Annum, though when I entered on the Duties not more than $1400 were produced. My Salary was raised to two thousand Dollars by the present Presidt before he left the Secy of State’s Office, but his Successor not asking for a sufficient Appropriation I was only occasionally paid at that rate, & lately by taking into the Secy’s Office more Clerks, they have absorbed the provision from which I was paid, & Congress have not yet made any Appropriation for the Deficiency & have only provided a continuance of $1400. Mr. Burwell & some other of my Friends, Members of the Comme. of Ways & Means, to whom this is referred, I believe are favourable, but I doubt whether the house will be found so. If not I mean to solicit (but it may be in vain) the Appointment of Consul to London, which I believe is yet unfilled. –I have not seen any of my relatives for more than 20 years, & the change of Climate might aid my recovery, if it should please the Almighty to grant me a respite from pain, which is now become almost constant. – I am, dear Sir, very sincerely & with the highest respect & consid. Yrs &c.

William Thornton”27

In April of 1816, President Madison did tell Congress that the Patent Office ought to be afforded the status of a separate bureau. Still, no action in that regard was then taken and it further appears that compensation for the head man lagged behind other government leadership positions. In 1829, Dr. John C. Craig, the third Superintendent of Patents likewise complained of the relative lack of pay.

During the 1820s, Thornton was a member of the prestigious society, the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences, which counted among its members former presidents Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, together with many other prominent contemporaries, including well-known representatives of the military, government service, medical, and other professions.28 Dr. Thornton held the position of Superintendent of Patents from June 1, 1802 until 16 years later, when, on March 28, 1828 he died with his boots on. Thornton was laid to rest in the Congressional Cemetery, in a tomb comparable to those afforded to senators and representatives. His grand funeral procession included the President of the United States, and members of the Cabinet and Congress.29

For more on the Blazing History of the U.S. Patent Office, be sure to read Part Two in The Federal Lawyer Supp., a digital edition of the magazine to be published in early July 2023.

Ira Cohen, Esq., B.A., J.D., LL.M., is an Intellectual Property Attorney and is the founder and principal of Ira Cohen, P.A. of Weston, FL. He is a member of the Florida and New York Bars, has been practicing law for 42 years, and is rated AV Pre-Eminent® by Martindale Hubbell.® Attorney Cohen served as Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Harold J. Raby, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York (1982-85). Ira also is the Immediate Past Chair of the FBA’s Intellectual Property Law Section, a proud Sustaining Member of the Federal Bar Association, a Lifetime Fellow of the Foundation of FBA, the Columns Editor for The Federal Lawyer, an FBA Moot Court Judge, a Member of FBA National Council, and an FBA Mentor. Ira can be reached at icohen@ictrademarksandcopyrights.com

Endnotes

1Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler, et al.; www.azquotes.com.Abraham Lincoln, “Speeches and Letters of Abraham Lincoln(1832-1865)(Easy Read Super Large 20 pt Edition)”, p. 14.

2It did not become the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) until the year 2000.

3Trademarks (and service marks), unlike patents and copyrights (which are creatures of the U.S. Constitution), also can be registered at the state level.

4The current Commissioner for Patents is Vaishali Udupa (who commenced service on January 17, 2023). The Commissioner for Trademarks, at present, is David Gooder.

5“Blackstone’s Commentaries”. “THE king’s grants are also matter of public record. For, as St. Germyn ſays, the king’s excellency is so high in the law, that no freehold may be given to the king, nor derived from him, but by matter of record. And to this end a variety of offices are erected, communicating in a regular ſubordination one with another, through which all the king’s grants muſt paſs, and be tranſcribed, and enrolled; that the ſame may by narrowly inſpected by his officers, who will inform him if any thing contained therein is improper, or unlawful to be granted. Theſe grants, whether of lands, honours, liberties, franchiſes, or ought beſides, are contained in charters, or letters patent, that is, open letters, literae patentes: ſo called becauſe they are not ſealed up, but expoſed to open view, with the great ſeal pendant at the bottom; and are uſually directed or addreſſed by the king to all his ſubjects at large. And therein they differ from certain other letters of the king, ſealed alſo with his great ſeal, but directed to particular perſons, and for particular purpoſes: which therefore, not being proper for public inſpection, are cloſed up and ſealed on the outſide, and are thereupon called writs cloſe, literae clauſae; and are recorded in the cloſe-rolls, in the ſame manner as the others are in the patent-rolls...” Book 21, Ch 21, p. 345 (1758). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk2ch21.asp 6Patents were given, for example, to favored courtiers for vinegar and playing cards. Kwong, Matt, Six significant moments in patent history, Nov. 4, 2014, http;//www.reuters.com/article/us-moments-patentidUSKBNOIN1Y120141104.

721 Jac 1 c3 (introduced by Sir Edward Coke), passed on 29 May 1624.

8CORTADA, JAMES W., RISE OF THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER, VOL. 8 OF RESOURCES FOR THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY, 141 (1998).

9Patent specifications (i.e., the concept of publishing the description of the invention) were introduced by King Henry II of France (15191559) in the year 1555.

10As president, Madison made another yet appointment that greatly influenced the future of American patents. Having appointed Joseph Story to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in 1811, Story served on the high court for over three decades, authoring no less than forty opinions relating to the subject of patent law.

11Writing in Federalist Paper 43, under the nom de plume, “PUBLIUS,” Madison stated: “The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases...” The Federalist No. 43, at 1 (James Madison). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp His fellow Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay also used the same pseudonym.

12Some scholars posit that there is evidence that a form of patent rights was recognized as early as in the time of Ancient

Greece. It is believed, for example, that, around 500 BCE, in the early Greek city of Sybaris, exclusive rights were granted, for a period of one year, to creators of unique culinary dishes.

13The federal government had moved its headquarters from New York City to Philadelphia in November of 1790.

14RAAB Collection, www.raabcollection.com/presidentialautographs/thomas-jefferson-patent-act.

15History of the United States Patent Office, The Patent Office Pony, Prologue—The Centennial Celebration, www.myoutbox.netr/ popch00.htm

16Jefferson, of Virginian stock (1743-1826), was an American Founding Father, the principal author of The Declaration of Independence, and the 3rd President of the United States (18011809).

17Knox, of Boston, Massachusetts (1750-1806), was the former Chief Artillery Officer of the Continental Army under General George Washington.

18Randolph, of Williamsburg, Virginia (1753-1813), was the 1st Attorney General of the U.S. (1789-1794), and previously had served as the aide-de-camp to General George Washington, as well as the 7th Gov. of Virginia and, later, the 2d Secretary of State of the United States.

19The original document is still in existence and is housed at the Chicago Historical Society.

20The model requirement was included because many applicants lacked literacy skills at that time. The working models, which were intended to convey the nature and purpose of the submitted invention, had to be no larger than 12 inches by 12 inches. See “The Early History of the Patent Office,” LexisNexis IP, Oct. 26, 2015, https://www.lexisnexisip.com/knowledge-center/the-early-historyof-the-u-s-patent-office/

21Id.

22See, generally, KENNETH W. DOBYNS, THE PATENT OFFICE PONY: A HISTORY OF THE EARLY PATENT OFFICE (reprint edition, 1997).

23Madison (1751-1836), an American statesman, Founding Father and, later, the 4th President of the U.S. (1809-1817), also is remembered as the “Father of the Constitution” (as he is recognized as the principal drafter of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).

24Congress referred to the position as the “Keeper” of patents; Thornton may have given himself the other title.

25The United States Post Office Department was established on February 20, 1792, by the signing of the Postal Service Act, based upon the Constitutional authority empowering Congress to “establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 7.

26Though it may surprise many modern-day readers, various colonial American jurisdictions had hitherto established debtors’ prisons largely based upon the British model. Indeed, they were quite prevalent in the U.S. at least until the mid-nineteenth century. Later on, the poorhouses or the poor farms were viewed as more humane societal alternatives. Believe it or not, jurist James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, served time, in 1792, in a debtors’ prison… during his tenure as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court! (1789-1798), as a result of land speculation in New York and Pennsylvania. Kindig, Thomas, “James Wilson 17421798”. ushistory.org/declaration/signers/Wilson.html. Retrieved on 27 Dec. 2018. Under federal law, imprisonment for debt was abolished in 1833, but the practice persisted in many states. See Wendy McElroy, The Return of the Debtors’ Prison?, The Independent Institute, April 1, 2008.

27‘William Thornton to Thomas Jefferson, 8 May 1812”, Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-05-02-0020-0001. 28Rathbun, Richard (1904). The Columbian institute for the promotion of arts and sciences: A Washington Society of 1816-1838. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, October 18, 1917. Retrieved 26 Dec. 2018. The first “learned society” established in Washington, it was organized on June 28, 1816. The second article of its constitution stated: “The Institute shall consist of mathematical, physical, moral and political sciences, general literature and fine arts.”

29On Thornton’s tomb was etched in stone his motto, “Deo Spes Meo.” [I hope to God]. History of the Architects of the Capitol, https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-108hdoc240/pdf/ GPO-CDOC-108hdoc240-2-11.pdf.

The Local: A Legal Thriller

By Joey Hartstone

Published: June 14, 2022; Doubleday

E-Book, 305 pages, $28.00

Reviewed by: Conor Craft Marshall, Texas: Small-town lawyer James Euchre’s only legal experience is serving as local counsel for intellectual property litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, where Judge Gerald Gardner rules the patent docket like his personal fiefdom. But when Gardner is murdered and Euchre’s client— the head of a prosperous tech company facing an infringement lawsuit—becomes the chief suspect, Euchre abruptly finds himself trying a case with much higher stakes than reasonable royalties.

Joey Hartstone’s The Local leads the reader through the ups and downs of Euchre’s first murder trial, and as always in a legal thriller, lawyers will need to suspend their disbelief to some degree: Euchre happens to be the last person who saw Judge Gardner alive, only hours before his death, but of course a compelling story requires that Euchre serve as defense counsel, not a mere witness. Some of the asides about patent law seem to go off the rails. (At one point, a seasoned patent litigator confidently tells the court, “It goes without saying that one can patent an idea.” But see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972): “It is conceded that one may not patent an idea.”). And though Euchre has no experience as a criminal lawyer, his rich client—with the pick of attorneys from across the country— adamantly wants Euchre defending his life all the same.

Still, Hartstone gets enough of the law right—throwing out terms like “Markman hearing” and distinguishing between district judges and magistrate judges—to create a sense of verisimilitude. The underlying premise of the novel is also grounded in reality. At least until 2017 (see TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017)), Marshall and the Eastern District of Texas were indeed the premier locations for patent litigation in the United States, and even after TC Heartland, a different district in Texas (until recent changes in the distribution of patent cases among its divisions) became the new preferred venue for plenty of patent plaintiffs. A lawyer in Euchre’s position could easily have found rich clients and lots of work as local counsel. All in all, as long as the reader doesn’t mind the occasional melodramatic hearing, the inaccuracies shouldn’t bother.

Besides, the stories of Euchre’s past, and the mystery behind the murder, are both more engrossing than the legal wranglings. As good authors commonly do, Hartstone drops hints about Euchre’s background early in the novel and presents a flawed character who obviously suffered trauma in his life. The full revelation of Euchre’s personal history comes late in the novel, and when it does, it proves satisfying. Hartstone creates a backstory that explains Euchre’s foibles and also offers a hopeful hint of a man who regrets his mistakes and, at bottom, hopes to learn from them to better care for others.

Readers looking for romance will also find a dash of it, though the romance contributed much less to Euchre’s character than his backstory. Euchre’s romantic interest seemed at times to be a literary convenience, inserted so that Euchre would have someone to whom he could explain his backstory for the reader’s benefit.

More illuminating than the romance was Euchre’s relationship with a much-maligned fellow attorney from Marshall, Samuel Earl Whelan. The two have clashed routinely and sometimes physically, as Whelan at one point took a swing at Euchre in open court. In the end, however, Euchre admirably demonstrates compassion and forgiveness for the man who wronged him. Hartstone also adds a touch of redemption for Whelan himself. One of Samuel Earl’s last acts in the novel shows how even a deeply flawed man can display loyalty and self-sacrifice, albeit— in this case—in a way that may not lead to justice.

The mystery, meanwhile, includes a legal thriller’s obligatory twists and turns, with assorted suspects who had motive, means, or opportunity to kill Judge Gardner. Hartstone adds to the drama by creating a sympathetic defendant for Euchre’s client. Like Euchre and Samuel Earl, defendant Amir Zawar has his flaws but also his redeeming qualities. Zawar has a hot temper and passion he sometimes can’t control, but principally, he is a man with big dreams and impressive dedication. The hardworking son of hardworking immigrants, he built his tech company from the ground up; he’s an American success story a reader can root for. A darker aspect of Zawar’s character emerges later in the novel, but for most of the story, he’s a rags-to-riches entrepreneur who has put his faith in the American legal system. It’s up to Euchre to prove that faith wasn’t misplaced, and I found myself hoping he was up to the task.

Euchre, of course, has his work cut out for him. Set aside the complete lack of criminal experience; he also has evidence pointing in different directions, numerous leads to run down, and an often uncooperative client. Hartstone, though, weaves in hints along the way to guide the reader and our protagonist towards the right answer, and when Euchre finally unmasks the murderer, the explanation and the evidence hold together fairly well: not so far-fetched as to make the reader’s eyes roll, but not so obvious as to be easily guessed.

Some potential plot points or aspects of the characters do go unexplored. Euchre’s budding romance has little impact on the novel’s story, and every lawyer in the novel, Euchre especially, seems to drink heavily— perhaps an undeveloped allusion to the rate of substance abuse in the legal profession. Still, a focus on the main plot is hardly a fault in a thriller; the story proceeds apace to the conclusion, and the reader need not wait long to see the mystery solved.

Overall? Don’t read The Local if you want any tips on practicing law but do read it to enjoy guessing at the murderer and seeing if you can beat our protagonist to the conclusion.

Conor Craft graduated from the University of Illinois College of Law and has spent his legal career with the federal government, including the last seven years at the Department of Justice.