Difference between revisions of "Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (901422128)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Read for 1/26/11 ==Reading Notes== *Decided in 1955 by the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit **Appeal from decision of District Court for the Western District of New York *Pate...")
 
Line 38: Line 38:
 
**Was supposed to apply retroactively which is unconstitutional  
 
**Was supposed to apply retroactively which is unconstitutional  
 
*The legislature should be free to reinstate the courts' initial representation despite an later obscuration
 
*The legislature should be free to reinstate the courts' initial representation despite an later obscuration
*The Act may be applied as if it existing during the application of any patent but any previous court finding must remain  
+
*The Act may be applied as if it existing during the application of any patent but any previous court finding must remain
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
==Class Notes==
 
==Class Notes==

Revision as of 17:44, 25 January 2011

Read for 1/26/11

Reading Notes

  • Decided in 1955 by the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit
    • Appeal from decision of District Court for the Western District of New York
  • Patent granted in 1946 and upheld in District with the defendant conceding infringement
  • Defendant complains "suitable coatings" is too vague a description
  • Question is whether the invention had been disclosed in an earlier patent or publicly used at the time of application
  • Patent in question here is a process
    • No earlier patents disclosed the same sequence
  • Run through of earlier patents which are related
    • All so widely diverged from Lyon that they would not be anticipations
  • Defendant insists that mirrors are among the elements that the invention covers
  • Cartwright and Turned had very similar patents
    • Disclosed coating an "optical surface" with a film or "inorganic salt"
    • None of these specifies that the "optical surface" should be kept hot while being coated
  • The only new part of Lyon's patent was the heating of surface throughout the whole process
    • Must determine if the patent depended on it and if it was in the public before
    • Did improve the issue of being rubbed or scratched off
  • Cartwright had written a letter describing the method and the possibility of getting it patented before the date of application
    • Similar experiments can be easily disposed of but not this
  • After much deliberation Cartwright's experimentation was also disposed of
    • He believed the process failed at the purpose he intended and thus abandoned further development or patenting
    • Decided he neither put the process to public use nor was the inventor
  • Twenty or thirty years prior Lyon would certainly meet the requirements but not so clearly at present
  • Cites Hotchkiss v. Greenwood on the matter of skillful mechanic or inventor
  • Did Lyon put his process in public use or sale, thus rendering it invalid
    • No, everything he had done within the year falls under the title of "experimental work" and thus he is in the clear
  • Judgment affirmed


Nonobviousness in 1955

  • Does the patent depend on the alterations
  • Courts do not treat experimental users as anticipations
  • Act of 1952
    • Case would have been invalid 25 years prior
    • Before this the only standard was "new and useful"
    • Was supposed to apply retroactively which is unconstitutional
  • The legislature should be free to reinstate the courts' initial representation despite an later obscuration
  • The Act may be applied as if it existing during the application of any patent but any previous court finding must remain

Class Notes