Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-05-17
IMPORTANT TO PATENTEEs.


i has heretofore been held in the Patent Office that under
the seventh section of the law passed the Sd March, 1885,
the sale Of newly invented article by the inventor Or with
his CONSENT before he applied for patent would nva
date it excepting such sale had been made for than
years prior to such application excepting proof of the
abandonment of such invention the public. But, by
letter just received from intelligent gentleman New
York, it appears that the 18th instant the Circuit
Court of the United States the of James Wilson u.s.
Austin Packard it in evidence that Wilson had sold
stove the right which in controversy months prior
to his application for patent therefor On this testimony
ruled by Judges Nelson and BETTs that if the inventor
sells the article which he has invented in the usual way,
ne authorizes another to sell it. he abandons to the public.
That the SALE in the usual way single instance, de-
dcaon Of to the public That it not question whether
the inventor intended abandon the public but merely
what he has actually DONE That the idea that person
sell the thing invented without an abandonment the public
is absurdity That if the jury satisfied that the
plaintiff had thus sod instance before he applied for
his patent, they should find for the defendant.
1t is to be hoped that appeal from this decision may be
made the Supreme Court order that it may be either
confirmed reversed What the intention of those who
framed the section of the law in question is well known
the writer Of this article in many instances had abored
long and exhausted their in bringing machine to per-
lection, and by selling this individual instrument they could
procure money enough enable them to obtain patent
but under the then existing laws, such sale amounted
forfeiture of their rights really supposed by the
Initiated that the law had been changed this particular but
it appears that the attempt to do failure, and
that the Commissioner of Patents and others filling important
stations in the Patent Office have only misconsued the
INV, but have afforded advice and information
which have been destructive Of their interests Whatever
may be the final result should the question be carried up
the Supreme Court of the United States the only safe
be followed by inventors will be for them carefully
abstain from making any sale before completing their appca-
tons in the office.
Since the foregoing written further communication
has been received em New York, written by gentleman of
the Bar, from which appears that Judge Nelson charged
the jury that the patent equally avoided by the sale
the stove, the part Of the applicant after he had completed
his application, but prior TO the issuing Of the patent 1t is
intended the present communication enter into
argument respecting the of the instructions given
to the jury by the Court 1t frequently happens that months
and sometimes epse between the time of making the
application and the completion Of the grant In the OF
Wilson's patent this had extended full three years. and
during this period number of his had been sold 1t
known the writer that legal decision adverse the
safety of selling had been made in The
given by the Patent Office and the words of the
patent law well many decisions under the of l793
and that force have quoted the minds of inventors
respecting their right to make sales after their application
before the Office but all is uncertainty,
this point, and the validity Of large proportion of the
ing patents put in jeopardy. I. p. j.