Appellate Brief for Petitioner (January 1939) in The Electric Storage Battery Co., Petitioner, v. Genzo Shimadzu and Northeastern Engineering Corporation, Respondents (RCTA): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "== Questions Addressed == # Whether Shimadzu can by oral evidence of earlier conception take the date of his inventions back of June 1921. # Whether the patents, if otherwise v..." |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# Shimadzu has no foreign patent for 1,896,020 | # Shimadzu has no foreign patent for 1,896,020 | ||
# Upon evidence of oral testimony, drawings, and purported copies of alleged notebook entries, Courts below found date of invention as no later than August 1919. | # Upon evidence of oral testimony, drawings, and purported copies of alleged notebook entries, Courts below found date of invention as no later than August 1919. | ||
# Lower court: "We are not concerned with the motives which prompted him, in taking out the '563 patent, to confine it to a single step [...] and to withhold the really essential steps of the invention for later patenting. It is sufficient to say that he had the right to do this if he chose." | # Lower court: "We are not concerned with the motives which prompted him, in taking out the '563 patent, to confine it to a single step [...] and to ''withhold the really essential steps of the invention for later patenting.'' It is sufficient to say that he had the right to do this if he chose." | ||
# Respondents themselves proved that petitioner's process and apparatus were not secret. | # Respondents themselves proved that petitioner's process and apparatus were not secret. | ||
# The inventions of petitioner's process and apparatus were made wholly independently of Shimadzu. | # The inventions of petitioner's process and apparatus were made wholly independently of Shimadzu. | ||
== Timeline == | == Timeline == | ||
Latest revision as of 17:22, 4 March 2011
Questions Addressed
- Whether Shimadzu can by oral evidence of earlier conception take the date of his inventions back of June 1921.
- Whether the patents, if otherwise valid, are invalidated by Shimadzu's suppressing, concealing, and withholding his inventions
- Whether the commercial use by the petitioner is a public use and a bar to patentability
Undisputed Facts
- Petitioner began commercial production in June 1921
- Shimadzu made no disclosure of his inventions to anyone in the U.S. prior to filing
- Shimadzu has no foreign patent for 1,896,020
- Upon evidence of oral testimony, drawings, and purported copies of alleged notebook entries, Courts below found date of invention as no later than August 1919.
- Lower court: "We are not concerned with the motives which prompted him, in taking out the '563 patent, to confine it to a single step [...] and to withhold the really essential steps of the invention for later patenting. It is sufficient to say that he had the right to do this if he chose."
- Respondents themselves proved that petitioner's process and apparatus were not secret.
- The inventions of petitioner's process and apparatus were made wholly independently of Shimadzu.
Timeline
- 08/??/1919: Alleged foreign invention
- 11/20/1920: Japanese patent 41,728 (alleged 1,584,149)
- 11/27/1920: Japanese patent 42,563 (alleged 1,584,149)
- 06/??/1921: Petitioner's public use in U.S.
- 01/30/1922: Filed patent 1,584,149
- 07/14/1923: Japanese patent 42,563 (alleged 1,584,150) AND filed patent 1,584,150
- 04/27/1926: Filed patent 1,896,020
