McCormick v. Howard

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 238
• 15 F. Cas. 1306

Syllabus

<p>Depositions taken in eormer oase — when may be used. — Depositions taken in a former interference may be read at the trial when the subject-matter at issue in the former case was the. same and the parties in interest, assignors of the entire right, were the same, so that the party against, whom the deposition is offered has had full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.</p> <p>Sm — Sit.—It would be unnecessarily oppressive to require the party, merely to gratify form, to take his testimony over again, as well as uselessly expensive.</p> <p>Principle — unsuccessful experiments- — reduction to practice. — A mere principle or idea, until it assumes a practical form, is not patentable; and a long course of mere fruitless experiments to reduce the principle to practice would not prevent a subsequent original inventor who had perfected his invention without knowledge of the prior invention from obtaining a patent.</p> <p>Reasonable diligence — effect of.— On the other hand, when a prior inventor has been using reasonable diligence to perfect and adapt the invention to practice, all his rights will be preserved and protected, although his success may not have been perfect.</p> <p>First inventor — before all others. — The expression in our statute means that the patentee must have been the inventor first in point of time before all others.</p> <p>Estoppel — failure to apply. — The fact that an alleged inventor neglected to apply for a patent, although he knew that other persons had filed applicacations for the same invention, brings him within the-reason of the rule that when a man has been silent when in conscience he ought to have spoken he will be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent.</p>