Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu case brief summary
307 U.S. 5 (1939)
CASE FACTS
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and dismissed the bill of the inventor and the licensee with respect to two patents and remanded for a reexamination of the questions of the validity and infringement of a third patent. The Court held that if a valid patent was to issue, the invention must not have been in public use in the U.S. for more than two years prior to the filing of the application. The company's commercial use was a public use within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.S. § 31. The Court ruled that this use begun more than two years before the inventor applied for the patents, invalidating the claims in suit.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment and held that the patents at issue were not infringed by the company because its commercial use of the invention, begun more than two years before the inventor applied for the patents, was a public use which invalidated the claims in suit. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
307 U.S. 5 (1939)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner company sought certiorari as
to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
which affirmed a district's judgment holding valid and infringed
certain claims of three patents in the patent infringement action of
respondents, a patentee and an exclusive licensee.CASE FACTS
- The inventions on which the patents were based were conceived by the patentee and reduced to practice in Japan.
- He did not disclose the inventions to anyone in the United States before he began applying for United States patents.
- He sought the patents at least three years after he began to use the inventions in Japan.
- The inventions were not patented or described in any printed publication in the U.S. or any foreign country prior to the filing of the applications.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and dismissed the bill of the inventor and the licensee with respect to two patents and remanded for a reexamination of the questions of the validity and infringement of a third patent. The Court held that if a valid patent was to issue, the invention must not have been in public use in the U.S. for more than two years prior to the filing of the application. The company's commercial use was a public use within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.S. § 31. The Court ruled that this use begun more than two years before the inventor applied for the patents, invalidating the claims in suit.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment and held that the patents at issue were not infringed by the company because its commercial use of the invention, begun more than two years before the inventor applied for the patents, was a public use which invalidated the claims in suit. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment