Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting liabil- ity for an individual officer who merely acted as an agent of the defendant and received a salary for his work
• testing in public under actual conditions of use was required to establish the efficacy of the invention, and was not an invalidating public use
• testing in public under actual conditions of use was required to establish the efficacy of the invention, and was not an invalidating public use
• discussing experimental use exception to the on sale bar to patentability
• “The public had the incidental use of the pavement, it is true; but was the invention in public use, within the meaning of the statute?”
• ‘The use of an invention ... by way of experiment, and in order to bring the invention to perfection, has never been regarded as such a [barring public] use.’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).