Brief Fact Summary. Nicholson (Plaintiff) charged the City of Elizabeth (Defendant) with patent infringement when the City laid down a wooden pavement using his patented process.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Â An invention is not placed in “public use” by public experimentation.
Undoubtedly, the three conditions prescribed by the statute, namely, the deposit before publication of the printed copy of the title of the book, the giving of information of the copyright by the insertion of the notice on the title-page or the next page, and the depositing of a copy of the book within three months after the publication, are conditions precedent to the perfection of the copyright.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Is an invention placed within the statutory meaning of “public use” by public experimentation?
Held. No.Â An invention is not placed in “public use” by public experimentation. It is not enough that the public know about the invention as public use or sale must occur.Â If the invention is in public use or sale prior to the two years before filing as required by statute, the policy of abandonment requires that the inventor loses all rights.Â However, street pavement cannot be experimented upon satisfactorily without public use.Â The public had incidental use of Plaintiff’s pavement, but not “public use” within the meaning of the statute.Â If Plaintiff had allowed Boston to lay payment down somewhere else in the city or if he had sold it, it would have been different, but Plaintiff never let the invention be out of his control.Â Public knowledge of the invention does not prevent the inventor from receiving a patent.Â It is the public use or sale of the object that will prevent the patent.Â Affirmed.
Discussion. Although Elizabeth does seem to undercut Story’s opinion in Pennock v. Adam Dialogue, 27 U.S. (1829), because it does not necessarily encourage early filing, the policy reasons are obvious.Â Some inventions require public experimentation and others do not.Â It is less obvious whether public experimentation is an exception to the “public use” rule or whether it is simply not a “public use.”Â In TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 220 U.S.P.Q. 577 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert denied, 469 U.S. 826 (1984), implies it is not an exception.Â Judge Nies wrote that it is not correct to ask first whether it is a public use and second, whether it is experimental.Â The correct question is whether it is a “public use” under Â§ 102(b).