MEYER PIET, AND FUTURECRAFT CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiffs' invention was in public use and on sale more than one year prior to the patent application date, rendering the patent invalid.
Plaintiffs sought patent protection for an invention, but the invention had been in public use and on sale more than one year before the patent applic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
We believe the trial court was correct in its decision on each of the two principal issues contained in this case, i. e., that the plaintiffs’ invention was “in public use” and “on sale” (as those words of art are used in patent law) more than one year prior to the date of the application for a patent. Plaintiff-inventor chose neither to file an earlier application for a patent, nor to himself restrict or limit the use of the valves by others. By his own actions he has prevented the protection ordinarily granted by a patent to apply to him, under the unusual circumstances of this case.
It was agreed by opposing counsel at oral argument that paragraph II of the opinion rendered below, incorporated by reference in the Findings, should be modified to correct an error appearing therein. The second, reference to the March 29th date should read “1953,” rather than “1954,” in order to be in accord with Conclusion of Law 2.
As thus modified, the opinion of the able trial judge below is adopted by us, in all particulars, as our opinion herein. Cf. D.C.S.D.Cal.1959, 176 F.Supp. 576.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hobbs v. United States, 451 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Moore, 613 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
-
The Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence