Document: 344 U.S. 13 73 S.Ct. 75 97 L.Ed. 12 SANFORDv.KEPNER. No. 46. Argued Oct. 24, 1952. Decided Nov. 10, Mr. J. Preston Swecker, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hugh M. Morris, Wilmington, Del., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Claiming he was original and sole inventor a mechanical device, respondent Kepner asked United States Patent Office patent. Later petitioner Sanford filed similar application making same claim. As authorized by R.S. § 4904, 35 U.S.C. 52, U.S.C.A. Commissioner Patents directed board interference examiners to hold hearings determine dispute over priority invention—which two first used device. The Board decided Kepner. Sanford's patent accordingly refused. 4915, 63, brought this bill in equity praying that be adjudged device entitled also prayed Kepner's claims unpatentable, charging many previous patents had been granted on some which expired. Agreeing with Interference Examiners, District Court found against issue prior use. Since enough justify refusal patent, declined go further consider claim Accordingly dismissed. 99 F.Supp. 221. Court, Appeals affirmed. 3 Cir., 195 F.2d 387. circuits have different views concerning duty district courts adjudicate questions invention patentability when parties urge them 4915 proceedings.1 To settle these differences we certiorari. 343 976, 72 1075. 2 So far as relevant precise question here, now contained reads: '* * whenever any applicant is dissatisfied decision examiners, may remedy court adjudge such entitled, according law, receive his *. And adjudication, if it favor right applicant, shall authorize commissioner filing copy adjudication otherwise complying requirements law.' 4 obvious purpose quoted part give judicial an who has finally denied because him adversary priority. When trial decides factual thus affirms Office, obtained full statute gives him. Only wins proceed. In event, says, proceed 'adjudge *.' adjudging, issuance But authorization implies sanction reason said, 'It necessarily follows no can made unless alleged sought patentable invention.' Hill v. Wooster, 132 693, 698, 10 228, 230, 33 502. principle case must decide whether show inventions before authorizing No its holding or wording nor Hoover Co. Coe, 325 79, 65 955, 89 1488, requires us say compels at instance one whose groundless. 5 It unlikely proceeding would develop investigation validity. There attack comparable infringement action. Here very person claimed asks prove all issued long either party discovery. real between here see read into court's compulsory 6 Affirmed. accord Appeals, Heston Kuhlke, 179 222; Smith Carter Carburetor Corp., 130 555; Cleveland Trust Berry, 517. Contra: Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Milwaukee Gas Specialty Co., 7 174 203; Knutson Gallsworthy, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 304, 164 497.

Category: 7