Docstoc

Townsend v Smith

Document Sample
Townsend v Smith Powered By Docstoc
					              Townsend v Smith
                   Reduction to   [Constructive
Townsend           practice:      Reduction to
Conception:                       Practice:
                   11/10/1921
6/1/1921                          c. 11/14/1921]



               Conception:
               10/19/1921

Smith
           Townsend v Smith
• P. 444: “Conception consists in the
  complete performance of the mental part
  of the inventive art.”

• “All that remains . . . [is] construction . . .”
       Basic Priority Rule
“Townsend was the first to
 conceive and the first to reduce
 to practice. . . [T]here being no
 abandonment or negligence
 since reduction to practice,
 Townsend is entitled to
 priority” -- 445
          Townsend’s Timeline
                          Reduction to
                          practice:
Conception:
6/1/1921                  6/1/1923




              Smith:
    Conceive and R to P
      within 2 months
           Christie v Seybold
Christie          Reduction to
    Conception:
                  practice:            Filed:
    Summer 1886   7/12/1886            6/7/1889


 Conception:                     R to P: Filed:
 10/1885                         4/1889 6/6/1889

Seybold
            Legal Standard
P. 451: “[T]he man who first reduces an
  invention to practice is prima facie the first
  and true inventor, but that the man who
  first conceives . . . [an invention] may date
  his patentable invention back to the time of
  its conception . . .”
        The role of diligence
“The burden is on the second reducer to
  practice to show the prior conception, and
  to establish the connection between that
  conception and his reduction to practice by
  proof of due diligence . . .” – p. 452
            Christie v Seybold
 Christie
                  Reduction to
     Conception   practice




  Conception                     R to P
ONLY Seybold’s diligence
matters
 Christie
                  Reduction to
     Conception   practice




      C                          R to P
Seybold’s Diligence period
begins JUST PRIOR to
Christie’s Conception
   35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2)
• Interferences – (g)(1)

• Anticipation – (g)(2)

• Common priority rule – stated in (g)(2)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:7/16/2013
language:English
pages:10