Evening journal., 1919-08-07
O'NEIL PATENT
CASE DISMISSED
Chancellor Holds c o m :
Plaa,ants Rights if Any
Are in Law Court
BROUGHT ACTION
AGAINST DU P0NT co.

Chancellor Charles NJ. Curtis has
handed down am opinion in tho case
of Arthur samuel U'Nel against p. IL
dupont de Nemours and Company
sustaining the demurrer med against
the bin and entering a decree dis
m ssing the bin Tor want OF equity.
HO5ert Pennington was solicitor Tor
the complainant and William >. Hillos
and j p Lanes Tor the defendant
In tho demurrer filed against lhe
amended bin OF he complainant on
March q, the main defect urged asainst
the bin Was tlmt The remedy, II any
Is al law and not In equity
The allegations OF the complainant
are that hc discovered "a new process
for me making Of powder and In 1910
disclosed 10 20 the deienant company
In order that he company should de-
lcrmno whether 10 was valuable TO II
and report thereon TO the complainant
Without his knoWlcdgf, the compla n
ant alleged. the company, m i9lh
found 10 Nalulhlc and thereafter made
large quaniitics of powder by the use
of ID. hut made no report thereof.
He learned. The bin siotcs that about
April, 1916. an application Tor patent
on The process WIS about 10 be made
by other persons and protested against
il. with the result tmIi an application
was made by HIM. and 40 the request
OF the defendant company. tho appl-
Gallon was assigned 10 30 without am
consideration named or paid except Of
a nominal ono Of S.. which was never
paid. At that time. the complainant
saws ne did not know That the process
had been found useful, and thet much
powder had been made by ihe use
Of 10 IL.
and that under it employees OF the com
pany had been rewarded. and know
also that independent of the bonus
plap they had been rewarded because
useful 10 their employer II was IN
March. 1918. when he learned OF the
use OF the process by the company ne
held
"He then says in paragraph 20 OF the
er,onded hin q" the Chancellor con-
tinues. 'fhat being aware of tQese hene-
nts which had come 20 useful employees
and relying on the rewards of the bonus
plan and with the express understand
ine given him by the officers. agents
and attorneys Of the defendant com
pany that he would be amply compen-
sated for the value Of said process and
invention. and relying upon the prom
lses and inducements 50 held out 20
/ him by the said officers, agents and at
/ tornevs Of the defendant company, he
assigned tho application for the patent
on the process. A. that time he had NO
knowledge of the use which the com
panv had made OF the process. anC
obtained such knowledge after March
1918. Afterwards ne was offered a re
ward under the bonus plan and rofusoi
30 accent IT,
Preceding this. Chancellor Curtis
states 1T is dincult 10 grasp ihe real
ground on which The complainant
bases his claim 20 equitable relief IN
his amended bill
The grounds for equitable relief
were: "Docelt by the company through
! It's promises 10 amply compensate the
complainant for the value Of his pro
cess: its concealment Of the use made
/ thereof by promises of reward set out
/ In tho bonus plan: and that the assign
ment by him Of the application for a
patent was made without consideration
as a result Of this deception. conceal
ment and promises.
The Chancellor. in his opinion. states
"In the final analysis. then, II seems
I that under the amended bill, as under
The original bill. the rights Of the COM
plainant. n any. are In court OF law
and In equity. His right N any. Is for
[ h-oecb ~ n contract 10 compensate
I him for the use made OF his patent.'