Alexander Milburn Company v. Davis-Bournonville Company
270 U.S. 390 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent application that fully describes an invention, even if it does not claim that specific invention, constitutes prior art as of its filing date and invalidates a later-filed patent for the same invention because it demonstrates the subsequent applicant was not the 'first inventor.'
Facts:
- On January 31, 1911, an inventor named Clifford filed a patent application for a welding and cutting apparatus.
- Clifford's application contained a complete and adequate description of a specific improvement, but did not formally claim that improvement as his invention.
- On March 4, 1911, an inventor named Whitford filed a separate patent application specifically claiming the same improvement that Clifford had previously described.
- No evidence existed that Whitford's invention date was earlier than his filing date.
- Clifford's patent was issued on February 6, 1912.
- Whitford's patent, held by Davis-Bournonville Co., was subsequently issued on June 4, 1912.
- Alexander Milburn Co. was accused of infringing Whitford's patent.
Procedural Posture:
- Davis-Bournonville Co. sued Alexander Milburn Co. in U.S. District Court for patent infringement.
- The District Court entered a decree for the plaintiff, Davis-Bournonville Co., holding that Clifford was not a prior inventor because he did not claim the invention.
- The defendant, Alexander Milburn Co., appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decree.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on this legal question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior patent application that completely describes an invention, but does not claim it, invalidate a subsequently filed patent for the same invention on the grounds that the patentee was not the 'original and first inventor'?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes. A prior patent application that describes an invention invalidates a subsequent patent for the same invention because it demonstrates the later applicant was not the first inventor. The patent statute requires a patentee to be the 'original and first inventor.' The Court reasoned that Clifford's earlier-filed application, by providing a 'complete and adequate description' of the invention, proves that Whitford was not the first to invent it. The disclosure in a patent application is equivalent to a printed publication for the purpose of establishing prior art; once filed, the description is destined for public disclosure and should be effective as of its filing date. The administrative delays of the Patent Office are irrelevant and should not allow a later applicant to benefit and be deemed the first inventor when they were not.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'Milburn doctrine,' a fundamental principle of U.S. patent law later codified in 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The ruling gives a U.S. patent's disclosure prior art effect as of its filing date, rather than its much later issue date. This significantly impacts patent prosecution by expanding the scope of prior art that can be used to reject a patent application or invalidate an issued patent. The doctrine reinforces the strict requirement that a patentee must be the genuine first inventor and prevents two patents from being issued for the same invention when one was described in the application of the other.
Unlock the full brief for Alexander Milburn Company v. Davis-Bournonville Company