Burlew v. O'Neil

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 168
• 4 F. Cas. 751

Syllabus

<p>Jurisdiction of the jud.ge — reasons of appeal. — The jurisdiction of the judge on appeal is limited and confined to the reasons of appeal; and whatever weight the judge may think is due to the arguments of counsel, he must disregard them if not within the reasons. . •</p> <p>Interference — applicant and patentee — question at issue. — In an interference between an applicant and a patentee, the only question of importance is whether the applicant is the first inventor; for if he is not, it is immaterial to the case who is.</p> <p>Sm — Sm—admissible testimony in such case. — Testimony taken in such a'case, showing that the patentee made the invention before the applicant, is properly receivable in evidence, and is decisive of the cause, though the testimony might at the same time .disclose valid objections to the grant of a patent to the patentee if that question were still open for consideration.</p> <p>Sm — Sm—testimony introduced under a patent of addition (thirteenth section, 1836). — Testimony taken to show that a certain invention annexed to a patent under the thirteenth section of the law of 1836, as an improvement invented subsequent to the date of the patent, was in fact invented by the patentee before the date of the patent, is receivable in evidence to show that an applicant is not the inventor, whether or not the patentee under the circumstances named could sustain his patent.</p> <p>Fraud in premature issue of patent not considered in an interference— question for jury. — The question of fraud involved in the premature issue of a patent to one of two conflicting' applicants, without notice to the other, will not be considered by the judge upon appeal in an interference between the patentee and the applicant. It must be tried by a jury in a direct suit brought for that purpose.</p>