Isett v. Rowe

30 F. Supp. 66, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 1, 1939
DocketNo. 990
StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Supp. 66 (Isett v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Isett v. Rowe, 30 F. Supp. 66, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935 (S.D. Ohio 1939).

Opinion

DRUFFEL, District Judge.

After careful consideration of the evidence, including the prior aft, together with the authorities submitted by counsel, this court is of opinion and finds as a matter of fact:

(1) That Isett patent No. 1,957,596 is invalid by reason of proven publication of description of method claimed therein more than two years prior to filing date.

(2) That Isett patent No. 2,039,420 is invalid for the reason that Isett was not the original and first inventor or discoverer of any material and substantial part of the thing patented, contrary to U. S. Revised Statutes, Sec. 4920, U.S.C. Title 35, Sec. 69, 4th, 35 U.S.C.A. § 69, subd. 4.

From which the court concludes as a matter of láw that plaintiff’s bill of complaint should be dismissed as for want of equity at plaintiff’s costs and that said Isett patents No. 1,957,596 and 2,039,420 are invalid.

An' entry may be submitted in accordance with the foregoing, with exceptions' to plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 69
35 U.S.C. § 69

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F. Supp. 66, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isett-v-rowe-ohsd-1939.