Sanford v. Kepner (344 U.S. 13)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 10, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 344 U.S. 13 · 73 S. Ct. 75
- Docket
- No. 46
- Argued
- October 24, 1952
- Decided
- November 10, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1952
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Black
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Douglas, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed, Justice Black (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. Claiming he was the original and sole inventor of a mechanical device, the respondent Kepner asked the United States Patent Office for a patent. Later the petitioner Sanford filed a similar application making the same claim. As authorized by R. S. § 4904, 35 U. S. C. § 52, the Commissioner of Patents directed a board of interference examiners to hold hearings and determine the dispute over priority of invention — which of the two first used the device. The Board decided for respondent Kep-ner. Sanford’s application for patent was accordingly refused. As authorized by R. S. § 4915, 35 U. S. C. § 63, Sanford brought this bill in equity praying that he be adjudged inventor of the device and entitled to a patent. Sanford also prayed that Kepner’s claims be adjudged unpatentable, charging that many previous patents had been granted on Kepner’s device, some of which had expired. Agreeing with the Board of Interference Examiners, the District Court found against Sanford on the issue of prior use. Since this was enough to justify refusal to issue Sanford a patent, the District Court declined to go further and consider Kepner’s claim to a patent. Accordingly Sanford’s bill was dismissed. 99 F. Supp. 221. Agreeing with the District Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 195 F. 2d 387. The circuits have different views concerning the…
Excerpt of a 4,587-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.