Tripler v. Linde

Citations

• 21 App. D.C. 32
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5491

Syllabus

<p>Patents; Interference; Prioritv of Invention; Estoppel; Evidence; Abandoned Experiment.</p> <p>1. A party to an interference who in his application made oath that his invention had not been patented to him or to others, with his knowledge or consent, in any country, cannot be heard to claim that a prior British patent granted him and an application here for the same invention, abandoned a few days after the filing of his present application, disclosed the invention in issue, as such a claim would be an admission of wilful fraud and perjury.</p> <p>2. In an interference proceeding, the abandonment by one of the parties of a prior application for a patent, relied on as disclosing the invention in issue, four years before his present application, and total and unexplained inactivity in regard to the invention during that time, necessarily leads to the conclusion that what he had done was no more than an abandoned experiment.</p>