Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P's patents relate to methods of prospecting for oil or other hydrocarbons. The method involves taking a number of samples of soil from formations which are not themselves productive of hydrocarbons, treating each sample, as by grinding and heating in a closed vessel, to cause entrained or absorbed hydrocarbons therein to evolve as a gas, quantitatively measuring the amount of hydrocarbon gas so evolved from each sample, and correlating the measurements with the locations from which the samples were taken. P claims that he invented this method in 1936. Patents '525 and '085, were issued. P alleged that D began infringing in 1947. P and D could not work out a license agreement. P sued D for infringement seeking an injunction and an accounting. D's defense was that prior art, some of which was not before the patent office, anticipated the two patents. D also alleged that the work carried on by Teplitz for the Gulf Oil Corporation invalidated both patents by reason of the relevant provisions of the patent laws which state that an invention is not patentable if it 'was known or used by others in this country' before the patentee's invention thereof, §102(a). P claims Teplitz and his coworkers knew and extensively used the same alleged inventions before any date asserted by P. D admitted that Teplitz while working for Gulf, conceived of the idea and did not deny that Teplitz conceived of the methods of the patents in suit. D claims that Gulf did not apply for a patent until 1939, did not publish Teplitz's ideas, and did not give the public the benefit of the experimental work. The trial court found P’s patents invalid based on anticipation. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co