Court Opinion

ID: 9417321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:08:10.489983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:38.461306
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Miller
dissenting.
The sixth section of the act of July 4, 1806, c. 357, makes it a condition of the grant- of a patent that the invention for which it was asked should not, at the time of the application for a patent, “ have been in public 'use or on salé with the consent or allowance” of the’inventor or discoverer. Section fifteen of the same act declares that it shall be a good-defence to an action for infringement of the patent, that it had been in public use or on sale with the. consent or’ allowance o.f the patentee before his application. This was afterwards modified by the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1839, c. 88, which 'declares that no patent shall be void on that ground .'unless the prior use has been for more than two years before the application..'
This is the law under which the patent of the complainant is held void by the opinion just delivered. The previous part of the same section requires that the invention must be one “ not known or used by others ” before the discovery or invention made by the applicant. In this limitation, though in the same sentence as the other, the word “ public ” is not used, so that the use by others which would defeat the applicant, if without his consent,.need not be public; but where the use of his invention is by his consent or allowance, it must be public or it will not have that effect.
The reason of this is undoubtedly that, if without his con- / sent others have used the machine, composition, or manufacture, it is strong proof that he was not the discoverer or first inventor. In that case he was not’entitled to a patent. If the use was with his consent or allowance, the fact that such consent tir allowance was first obtained is evidence that he was the inventor, and claimed to be such. In such case, he was not to *339lose his right to a .patent, unless the use which he permitted was such as showed an intention-of' abandoning his invention to the public. It must, in the language óf' the act, be in public use or on sale. If on sale, of course the public who buy can use it, and if used in .public with, his .consent, it may be copied by others. In either event there is an end of his exclusive right of use or.sale.
The word public is, therefore, an important member of the sentenep. A private use with consent, which could lead to no copy or reproduction of the machine, which taught the. nature • of the invention to no one' but the party to whom such consent was given,'which left the.public at large as ignorant of this as it was before- the’ author’s discovery, was no abandonment to the public, and did not defeat his claim for a patent. , If the little steel spring inserted1 in a single. pair of corsets, and used by only one woman, covered by her outer-clothing, and in a position always withheld from public obseiv vation, is a public use of' that piece of steel, I am at a loss to know the line between a private and a public use..
The opinion argues that the use'was public, because, with the consent of the inventor to its use, no limitation-was imposed in regard to its use in public. • It may be well imagined that a prohibition to the party so permitted against exposing her use of the steel spring to public observation would have been supposed to be a piece of irony. An objection quite the opposite' of this suggested by the opinion is, that the invention was incapable of a public use. That is to say, that while the statute says the right to the patent can only be defeated by a use which is public, it is equally fatal to the claim, when it is permitted to be used at all, that the article can never be used in public.
I cannot on such reasoning'as this eliminate from the statute the word public, and disregard its obvious importance in connection with the remainder of the act, for the purpose of defeating a patent otherwise meritorious.