Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P had filed an application for his process in the Patent Office on January 24, 1920. P communicated the substance of the disclosures of his application to Ittner, who was D's chief chemist, in order that D might exploit the process if it so desired. Ittner expressed himself as uninterested in the process. The Patent Office rejected P's application and he abandoned the prosecution of the application. On July 18, 1933, the '603 patent was issued to Ittner on an application filed by him on February 19, 1931. P filed a petition in the Patent Office to revive his original application. This petition was rejected. On November 8, 1934, P filed a new application in which he adopted as his own nineteen claims of Ittner's patent, asserting that the subject matter of Ittner's patent had been disclosed by him to Ittner in 1920. The Patent Office declared an interference. The examiner of interferences decided in P's favor. The court eventually held that the patent was invalid because of prior public use. The court below found that the process of the patent was in public use in the factory of D from November 1931 until November 1932, approximately one year, but more than two years prior to P's application of November 8, 1934. The court ruled that this public use was sufficient under the statute to preclude the issuance of a valid patent. P appealed. D has appealed from the refusal of the trial court to hold Ittner's patent valid.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co