Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 485 views

    National Tractor Pullers Association v. Watkins Digest

    Uploaded by

    Coco Navarro
    The plaintiffs claimed that a device conceived in 1963-64 by three individuals constituted prior art and invalidated the defendant's patent. However, the court found that: 1) For prior knowledge to invalidate a patent, it must be publicly disclosed knowledge accessible to the public before the patentee's invention. 2) The 1963-64 device was never publicly disclosed as the alleged drawings were on a private tablecloth and the device was never constructed. 3) The 1977 drawings produced for the trial did not prove the 1963-64 device was fully conceived or diligently reduced to practice, so it did not qualify as prior art. The court upheld the patent's validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    National Tractor Pullers Association v. Watkins Digest

    Uploaded by

    Coco Navarro
    485 views2 pages
    The plaintiffs claimed that a device conceived in 1963-64 by three individuals constituted prior art and invalidated the defendant's patent. However, the court found that: 1) For prior knowledge to invalidate a patent, it must be publicly disclosed knowledge accessible to the public before the patentee's invention. 2) The 1963-64 device was never publicly disclosed as the alleged drawings were on a private tablecloth and the device was never constructed. 3) The 1977 drawings produced for the trial did not prove the 1963-64 device was fully conceived or diligently reduced to practice, so it did not qualify as prior art. The court upheld the patent's validity.

    Original Description:

    Case brief for National Tractor Pullers Association v. Watkins

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs claimed that a device conceived in 1963-64 by three individuals constituted prior art and invalidated the defendant's patent. However, the court found that: 1) For prior knowledge to invalidate a patent, it must be publicly disclosed knowledge accessible to the public before the patentee's invention. 2) The 1963-64 device was never publicly disclosed as the alleged drawings were on a private tablecloth and the device was never constructed. 3) The 1977 drawings produced for the trial did not prove the 1963-64 device was fully conceived or diligently reduced to practice, so it did not qualify as prior art. The court upheld the patent's validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    485 views2 pages

    National Tractor Pullers Association v. Watkins Digest

    Uploaded by

    Coco Navarro
    The plaintiffs claimed that a device conceived in 1963-64 by three individuals constituted prior art and invalidated the defendant's patent. However, the court found that: 1) For prior knowledge to invalidate a patent, it must be publicly disclosed knowledge accessible to the public before the patentee's invention. 2) The 1963-64 device was never publicly disclosed as the alleged drawings were on a private tablecloth and the device was never constructed. 3) The 1977 drawings produced for the trial did not prove the 1963-64 device was fully conceived or diligently reduced to practice, so it did not qualify as prior art. The court upheld the patent's validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    which purported to be examples of what

    National Tractor Pullers Association Mr. Huls had attempted to draw in 1963-
    v. Watkins, 205 U.S.P.Q.(BNA) 892 64. The plaintiffs asserted that the
    (N.D.Ill. 1980) [394] conception of the machine on the back
    of the tablecloth constituted prior
    Case: Patent Cancellation knowledge by them, and therefore such
    Type of Claim: Device Claim knowledge was prior art which
    anticipated the claimed invention.
    Doctrine: Only publicly disclosed
    knowledge, or knowledge which is ISSUE
    reasonably accessible to the public, W/N such drawings constituted prior art
    before the patentee invented the
    claimed subject matter may serve as HELD
    prior art in order to render a patent No. In order to qualify as prior art, the art
    invalid. must be art which was known before the
    invention by the patentee. Prior
    Facts knowledge must be prior public
    This is an action for declaration of knowledge, that is knowledge which is
    invalidity and noninfringement of U.S. reasonably accessible to the public. The
    Patent brought by the plaintiff, National knowledge required involves some type
    Tractor Pullers Association, Inc., of public disclosure and is not satisfied
    ("NTPA") against the patentee and by knowledge of a single person, or a
    owner of the patent, Mr. Billy K. Watkins. few persons working together
    This court finds that the 1963-64
    The plaintiffs NTPA, which organized alleged Huls-Harms-Sage activities does
    and sanctioned pulling contests not qualify as prior art as found by the
    nationally, sued for a declaration that the Patent Office.
    defendants patent on a device for
    measuring the pulling strength of a In order for alleged prior inventions to
    tractor was invalid. qualify s prior art under, there must be
    a) proven by clear and convincing
    The Association contended that a device evidence,
    designed by three other inventors (the b) complete conception of a
    Huls device) anticipated Watkinss sled. buildable and operable device,
    The plaintiffs alleged that the claimed c) diligence to a reduction to
    invention was invented in 1963 or 1964 practice of the device,
    by three men, Huls, Harms, and Sage, d) identification between the
    who conceived of the substantially the alleged prior art deice and the
    same device, and drew it on a tablecloth claimed construction and lack of
    in Huls mothers kitchen. abandonment, and
    e) suppression or concealment by
    By 1977, when the lawsuit started, the the claimed prior inventor.
    alleged original drawing no longer
    remained, but Huls made some The court finds that the NTPA has failed
    drawings himself and hired a drafter to to prove complete conception by the
    prepare formal ones drawings in 1977 Shutzbaugh group prior to Mr. Watkins
    reduction to practice nor has diligence at least one participant in those
    been proven from the time of Mr. activities, Mr. Merle K. Sage, testified at
    Watkins' conception to the construction his deposition that the device allegedly
    of the Shutzbaugh sled. shown in the 1977 Huls drawings could
    not be construed as shown. The Irwin
    1977 drawings did not exist prior to Mr.
    The Huls 1963-64 activities do not
    Watkins conception and reduction to
    constitute prior art as also found by the
    practice, and do not purport to be
    Patent Office. The no longer existing
    identical with any drawings that ever
    alleged tablecloth drawings were never
    existed prior to 1977.
    available to the public. They were
    drawn on the underside of the tablecloth
    and remained in the kitchen of Mr. Huls
    mother's home and were never printed
    nor otherwise published before being
    destroyed. The device was never
    constructed or reduced to practice and

    You might also like