Contrary to the court case depicted in the movie, Kearns was actually represented by professional lawyers in his case against Ford. It was in his subsequent, and ultimately more financially successful action against Chrysler, that he acted as his own lawyer.
Kearns received many offers from Hollywood for his story over the years but he rejected them all as he didn't trust anyone enough to tell his story properly. Eventually he was won over by Marc Abraham's passion and his promise to keep to the facts as much as possible. The family provided documentation, photographs, home movies and anecdotes, while eldest son Dennis - now a lawyer - represented the family's interests. All in all, the process of getting the Kearns story up onto the big screen took 9 years.
Marc Abraham submitted numerous revisions to the screenplay to Universal Studios chief Stacey Snider who repeatedly told him that the reason the script was a hard sell was because the character of Kearns was not likeable. Abraham stuck to his guns however, insisting that this made it more realistic (and having worked alongside the real Kearns for many years, he knew his subject). When Universal underwent a management change, his project finally received the greenlight.
Kearns' real reason for consistently rejecting the escalating out-of-court settlements offered by Ford is significantly underplayed in the movie. His primary motive was not a public apology, but rather to be given the exclusive manufacturing rights.
The film's title comes from the 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp. that suggested an invention had to reveal the "flash of creative genius" to be patentable. A new U.S. patent act took effect in 1952 that eliminated the "flash of creative genius" requirement by adding the provision that "Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made." In effect, the new provision recognized that patentable inventions can result from long toil and experimentation.