The false allure of perpetual motion: overlooking innovation in patenting the impossible

By Massimo Galluppi, Ph.D.

For centuries, the idea of a perpetual motion machine – a device capable of operating indefinitely without an external energy source – has captured the imaginations of inventors, scientists and those with an excess of entrepreneurial spirit.

Unfortunately for such aspirational innovators, the unyielding principles of thermodynamics hold such a machine to be an impossibility. A 100% efficient device that operates without energy loss or external input defies the laws of entropy and our understanding of the very fabric of the universe.

Patent eligibility and the examiner's reality check

When it comes to any patent application, three criteria must always be met: novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability / utility. That is, an invention must be new, non-obvious to an informed person and able to be manufactured or used with current processes and technology. A machine that contradicts physical laws, such as one claiming to provide perpetual motion, evidently lacks industrial application, rendering its patent application void.

Despite these clear constraints, history has witnessed a stream of patent applications declaring they have fulfilled humanity's desire for an endless energy source.

Consider the case detailed in U.S. patent application 2007/0246939 A1 . Here, the applicant enthusiastically declares to have sole knowledge of a functioning perpetual motion machine, a dream conceived in childhood and pursued for over three decades. But as any patent office will attest, steadfast belief and years of dedication do not necessarily culminate in a successful grant, as the inescapable principles of physics are the strictest examiners of all.

Seeing the wood for the trees

This, however, brings us to an often-discounted aspect of the innovative pursuit – possible ancillary inventions. During his 31-year quest, Mr. Paul McDonald may have encountered numerous technical challenges, each solution being a potential seed for a patent in its own right. Perhaps these advancements could have made significant contributions to efficiency optimization.

The inverse of this is another poignant truth: doggedly chasing an unattainable goal can leave incremental yet tangible breakthroughs by the wayside. This fixation on the end rather than the means risks potential patents and their addition to the tapestry of innovation.

Striving defiantly for a dream is not a failure but an aspiration rooted in the human need for exploration. A journey into the impossible may not yield the intended results. Still, the path walked is often strewn with valuable insights and unforeseen advancements, each deserving recognition and, perhaps, a patent.