Case Name: GIVENS v. WARREN
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1915-05-28
Citations: 44 App. D.C. 10
Docket Number: No. 968
Parties: GIVENS v. WARREN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 44
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
GIVENS v. WARREN.
Patents; Interference; Reduction to Practice; Diligence; Concealment and Abandonment.
Where the junior party to an interference involving the invention of a lubricator for elevator guides reduced the invention to practice by an open and notorious test consisting of its use for two months on an elevator in a university dormitory building about fa year after the senior party’s conception, but two years prior to the latter’s reduction to practice by filing an application, it was held that the senior party was lacking in diligence when the junior party entered the field, and that the failure of the junior'party to file his application until about two years after his test did not amount to a concealment or abandonment of the invention. (Following Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86.)
No. 968.
Patent Appeals.
Submitted May 10, 1915.
Decided May 28, 1915.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding.
Affirmed.
Tbe Court in tbe opinion stated tbe facts as follows:
Tbis appeal is from tbe decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to appellee, Charles V. Warren, for a lubricator for elevator guides.
Tbe issue is in six counts, tbe first and fifth of which sufficiently illustrate tbe invention. They read as follows:
“1. Tbe combination of an oil can having a nose, a cylinder adapted to reciprocate within said nose, said cylinder having an enlarged end, a spiral spring arranged between tbe end of tbe nose and tbe enlarged end of tbe cylinder.”
“5. In a lubricator for elevator guides, a lubricant cup adapted to be secured to tbe elevator, an extensible member se cured to the cup and having a wick therein one end of which extends into the cup, and means for causing the other end of the wick to engage the elevator guide rail regardless of the distance between the lubricant cup and the said rail.”
Mr. William F. Hall and Mr. James M. Spear for the appellant.
Mr. F. L. Emery and Mr. Louis A. Jones for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Van Orsdel
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The tribunals of the Patent Office held that appellate, Benjamin W. Givens, conceived the invention in March, 1909, but accorded him his filing date, October 11, 1910, as the date of reduction to practice. Appellee, Warren, was awarded the date of January 10, 1910, for conception, disclosure, and reduction to practice. These findings are amply supported by the evidence.
Warren built and fully tested a lubricator embodying the invention in January, 1910, by using it for two months on an elevator in Fairfax Hall, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, a dormitory for students in connection with Harvard College. This construction and test constituted a complete reduction of the invention to practice. Warren, however, did not file his application until January 4, 1912. In the meantime, on June 27, 1911, a patent was issued to Givens.
The evidence fully supports the finding of the Commissioner that Givens was lacking in diligence when Warren came into the field and reduced the invention to practice, and that Warren's test in January, 1910, was so open and notorious that his failure to file for almost two years thereafter did not amount to concealment or abandonment of the invention within the rule announced in Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.