PATENTES BREVIA

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

PATENTES BREVIAAuthored
The Law Mind • 993 words
Definition
Patentes brevia (Latin: "open writs") is the Latin plural form for what English legal usage calls patent writs — formal written commands issued under royal or governmental authority that were open, unsealed, or publicly readable on their face, as distinguished from writs that were closed or sealed shut. The term is the direct Latin equivalent of the English "letters patent" in its writ form: a document addressed to the world at large rather than to a specific individual. In English common law practice, a patent writ was one delivered open, with the seal appended at the foot so that the contents could be read without breaking the seal. This contrasted with a close writ (brevia clausa), which was folded and sealed so that only the named recipient could read it. The distinction turned on audience: patent writs declared something publicly — conferring rights, granting franchises, or announcing royal commands — while close writs carried private instructions. ---
Common Confusion
PATENTES BREVIA / APERTA BREVIA / LETTERS PATENT These three terms overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably in historical sources, but they are not identical in usage. Patentes brevia and aperta brevia (literally "open writs") are near-synonyms in the Latin writ vocabulary and Bouvier treats them as cognate. Letters patent, however, is the more durable English-language descendant: it carries forward the same concept of an open, publicly addressed instrument, but its modern usage is almost entirely confined to intellectual property (patent grants) and royal grants of title or franchise. A researcher encountering patentes brevia in a medieval or early modern legal source should not assume the document concerns an invention patent in the modern sense; the term predates that usage by centuries. ---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical and antiquarian legal sources. Researchers are unlikely to encounter patentes brevia in any modern case law or statute; its practical significance is as a key to reading medieval writs, early English common law records, and Latin-language legal instruments from the Norman period through the early modern era. Several navigational points matter: First, the term is a Latin placeholder for a category, not a specific writ. When a historical source uses patentes brevia, it is describing a class of documents — any writ that was physically open and publicly legible. The content of such writs varied enormously: grants of land, franchises, safe conducts, royal proclamations, and what would later become monopoly grants (the ancestor of invention patents). Second, the lineage from patentes brevia to modern patent law is real but heavily mediated. English Chancery practice formalized the distinction between open and close writs during the medieval period, and the Statute of Monopolies (1624) later restricted royal grants of open letters patent for inventions. Modern invention patent law descends from that statutory reform, not directly from the Latin writ terminology. Conflating the two periods produces anachronistic readings. Third, researchers using the Law Mind corpus should be aware that the encyclopedia entry most relevant to the modern descendant concept — contracts_39 on patent versus latent ambiguity — uses "patent" in its ordinary Latin-derived sense of "open" or "apparent," not in reference to intellectual property at all. That usage is a direct survival of the same root meaning underlying patentes brevia and is worth understanding when reading ambiguity doctrine. Fourth, cross-referencing with aperta brevia (listed by Bouvier as a cognate) and with the broader category of brevia entries will surface the full taxonomy of writs in historical dictionaries. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines patentes brevia tersely as "open, of patent writs," citing Tayler, and immediately cross-references PATENT WRIT and APERTA BREVIA. This compression is characteristic of Bouvier's treatment of pure Latin technical terms: the substantive doctrine lives under the English headword. Researchers should follow the cross-reference to PATENT WRIT in Bouvier for the fuller explanation of how open writs functioned in practice. Bouvier does not develop the intellectual property dimension of patent writs — consistent with the state of patent law in the editions most commonly in use. Earlier editions of Bouvier predate the modern U.S. patent system's maturation, and the entry reflects that the term was understood in the writ-and-chancery sense rather than the commercial-invention sense. Historical English legal dictionaries, including Cowell's Interpreter and Blount's Nomo-Lexikon, treat patentes brevia and letters patent as part of the same conceptual family, with the open/closed physical distinction as the organizing principle. None of these sources anticipates the narrowing of "patent" in popular usage to mean exclusively an inventor's grant; that narrowing occurred gradually through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as the patent system became economically prominent. ---
Jurisdictional Note
As a Latin term of art from English common law's writ system, patentes brevia has no active jurisdictional variation in modern law. Its relevance is historical across common law jurisdictions generally. Civilian (Roman law) systems had analogous concepts of public instruments, but the specific writ vocabulary is an English common law inheritance. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
contracts_39: Interpretation — Ambiguity (Patent vs. Latent) and Contra Proferentem (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia) — useful for understanding how the root meaning of "patent" (open, apparent) survives in modern legal doctrine on ambiguity, distinct from intellectual property usage. ---
Related Terms
Aperta brevia — Latin synonym; see for cognate treatment in historical sources Brevia clausa — the contrasting category of close (sealed) writs Letters patent — the English-language descendant concept; modern usage confined to IP and royal grants Patent writ — Bouvier's English headword for this concept; follow the cross-reference Brevia — the general category of writs; parent concept Close writ — the functional opposite Statute of Monopolies (1624) — the statutory inflection point between the writ tradition and modern patent law Patent (ambiguity) — the survival of the root meaning in contracts doctrine; see contracts_39
PATENTES BREVIAmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Open, of patent writs. Tayler. See PATENT WRIT, APERTA BREVIA, PATER (Lat.). Father. The term is frequently used in genealogical tables. PATER-FAMILIAS (Lat.). In Civil Law. One who was sui juris, and not subject to the paternal power. In order to give a correct idea of what was un- derstood in the Roman law by this term. It is proper to refer briefly to the artificial organization of the Roman family, the greatest moral phenomenon in the history of the human race. The comprehensive term familia embraced both persons and property: money, lands, houses, slaves, children, all consti- tuted part of this artificial family, this juridical entity, this legal patrimony, the title to which was exclusively vested in the chief or pater-familias, who alone was capaz dominii, and who belonged to himself, sui juris. The word pater-familias is by no means equiva lent to the modern expression father of a family, but means proprietor in the strongest sense of that term; it is he qui in domo dominium habet, in whom were centred all property, all power, all authority: he was, in a word, the lord and master, whose authority was unlimited. No one but he who was sui juris, who was pater-familias, was capable of exercising any right of property, or wielding any superiority or power over anything; for nothing could belong to him who was himself alieni juris. Hence the children of the filii familias, as well as those of slaves, belonged to the pater familias. In the same manner, everything that was acquired by the sons or slaves formed a part of the familia, and, consequently, belonged to its chief. This absolute property and power of the pater-familias, only ceased with his life, unless he voluntarily parted with them by a sale; for the alienation by sale is invariably the symbol resorted to for the purpose of dissolving the stern dominion of the pater-familias over those belonging to the familia. Thus, both emancipation and adoption are the results of imaginary sales, per imaginarias venditiones. As the daughter remained in the family of her father, grandfather, or great-grand- father, as the case might be, notwithstanding her marriage, it followed as a necessary consequence that the child never belonged to the same family as its mother: there is no civil relationship between them; they are natural relations, cognati,-but they are not legally related to each other.-agnati; and therefore the child never inherits from its mother, nor the mother from her child. There was, however, a means by which the wife might enter into the family and subject herself to the power of her husband. in manu mariti, and thereby establish a legal relationship between herself and her husband. This marital power of the husband over the wife was generally acquired either coemptione, by the purchase of the wife by the husband from the pater-familias, or usu, by the prescription the possession of one year, the same by based on the which the title to movable property was acquired according to the principles governing the usucapio (usu capere, to obtain by use). Another mode of obtaining the same end was the confarreatio, a sacred ceremony performed by the breaking and eating of a small cake, farreum, by the married couple. It was supposed that by an observance of this ceremony the marital power was pro- duced by the intervention of the gods. This solemn mode of celebrating marriages was peculiar to the patrician families. By means of these fictions and ceremonies the wife became in the eye of the law the daughter of her husband, and the sister of the children to whom she gave birth, who would otherwise have been strangers to her. Well might Gaius say, Fere nulli ulli sunt homines qui talem in liberos habeant potestatem qualem nos habemus. There is some similarity between the agnatio, or civil relationship, of the Romans, and the trans- mission of the name of the father, under the modern law, to all his descendants in the male line. The Roman law says of the children, patris, non matris, familiam sequuntur; we say, patris, non matris, nomen sequuntur. All the members of the family who, with us, bear the same name, were under that law agnates, or constituted the agnatio, or civil family. Those children only belonged to the family, and were subject to the paternal power, who had been conceived in justis nuptiis, or been adopted. Nuptia, or matrimonium, was a marriage celebrated in conformity with the peculiar rules of the civil law. There existed a second kind of mar- riage, call concubinatus, a valid union and a real marriage, which has been often improperly com- founded, even by high authority, with concubinage. This confusion of ideas is attributable to a super- ficial examination of the subject; for the illicit intercourse between a man and a woman which we call concubinage was stigmatized by the oppro- brious term stuprum by the Romans, and is spoken of in the strongest terms of reprobation. The concubinatus was the natural marriage, and the only one whic

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In