Marvel v. Decker

Citations

• 13 App. D.C. 562
• 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3239

Syllabus

<p>Patents ; Interferences ; Due Diligence. '</p> <p>1. Where one party to an interference is the first to conceive the invention, but the other is the first to reduce to practice, both actually and constructively, the latter is entitled to an award of priority, unless the former shows he was in the exercise of due diligence at the time of the appearance of his rival in the field of invention; following Porter v. Louden, 7 App. D. O. 61; Yates v. Husen, 8 Id. 93, and Oroskey v. Atterbury, 9 Id. 207.</p> <p>2. Such due diligence is not shown by an applicant, where for nine years he does nothing except make some additional drawings . and talk about the invention occasionally and urge one or two persons to “take it up,” especially where it appears that during that time he has taken out two patents on the same general subject; following Fowler v. Dodge, 11 App. D. C. 592.</p>