Difference between revisions of "LYON v. BAUSCH & LOMB, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "== Situation == *Lyon granted a patent on April 16, 1946 for the invention of a hard, non-scratch/smear coating of light-transmitting glass surfaces (binoculars, periscopes) *Bau...")
 
 
Line 16: Line 16:
 
***Furthermore, Cartwright's failure in conduction the process shows that the invention was NOT obvious
 
***Furthermore, Cartwright's failure in conduction the process shows that the invention was NOT obvious
 
*A final question is whether Lyon had put the process into public use before being granted the patent - evidence shows that he did not.
 
*A final question is whether Lyon had put the process into public use before being granted the patent - evidence shows that he did not.
 +
 +
==In Class==
 +
*The defendant conceded infringement of the patent, if the patent was indeed valid.
 +
*Second paragraph: defendant is claiming that the patent did not sufficiently disclose the scientific knowledge of the invention - trade off for a patent is that you have to tell the world how you did it - defendant is saying Lyon didn't do this properly
 +
*35 USC 102=novelty
 +
**Detailed time line becomes important
 +
*35 USC 103
 +
**One way to decide if something is obvious: they had been searching for a solution for a long time (10 years) and hadn't been able to come up with one - thus, it seems like this invention must not have been obvious (if it were obvious someone would have done it long ago, when the need presented itself)
 +
*Side note: in appellate court it is common to have a 3 judge panel (unlike the supreme court which has all 9 listen to the case, typically)
 +
*Judge Hand says that under old rules, this patent would have been thrown out
 +
*Another important point: Hand debates whether the ruling should be retroactive
 +
*Tea and Hotchkiss barred the patentability of many things that we now consider patentable - this case, Lyon, and 35 USC 103 are a little bit more relaxed.

Latest revision as of 13:30, 28 January 2011

Situation

  • Lyon granted a patent on April 16, 1946 for the invention of a hard, non-scratch/smear coating of light-transmitting glass surfaces (binoculars, periscopes)
  • Bausch & Lomb challenge the validity of Lyon's patent
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit - on appeal from the Western District Court of NY

Outcome

  • The appellate court sustains the patent's validity.

Reasoning

  • The question: Was the invention disclosed in any earlier patent, or publicly used before Lyon filed the application on November 17, 1942?
    • The patented process: heat the optical surface in vacuum, vaporize and inorganic salt, while keeping the optical surface heated
    • No other patents disclosed the sequence, although a few were very close. Most of the close patents were sufficiently different so as not to serve as "anticipations"
      • One very close call: Cartwright and Turner - developed similar coatings, and even experimented with keeping the optical surface hot during coating - but in the end, Cartwright was "still uncertain" whether continued heating in the vacuum produced superior hardness
      • Thus, Cartwright was simply and experimenter (who failed) - which does not count as an "anticipation"
      • Court concluded that Cartwright did not put the process into public use and that he cannot be considered a prior inventor
      • Furthermore, Cartwright's failure in conduction the process shows that the invention was NOT obvious
  • A final question is whether Lyon had put the process into public use before being granted the patent - evidence shows that he did not.

In Class

  • The defendant conceded infringement of the patent, if the patent was indeed valid.
  • Second paragraph: defendant is claiming that the patent did not sufficiently disclose the scientific knowledge of the invention - trade off for a patent is that you have to tell the world how you did it - defendant is saying Lyon didn't do this properly
  • 35 USC 102=novelty
    • Detailed time line becomes important
  • 35 USC 103
    • One way to decide if something is obvious: they had been searching for a solution for a long time (10 years) and hadn't been able to come up with one - thus, it seems like this invention must not have been obvious (if it were obvious someone would have done it long ago, when the need presented itself)
  • Side note: in appellate court it is common to have a 3 judge panel (unlike the supreme court which has all 9 listen to the case, typically)
  • Judge Hand says that under old rules, this patent would have been thrown out
  • Another important point: Hand debates whether the ruling should be retroactive
  • Tea and Hotchkiss barred the patentability of many things that we now consider patentable - this case, Lyon, and 35 USC 103 are a little bit more relaxed.