Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
363 F.2d 908 (1966)
Gould (appellant) and Schawlow (respondent) both filed patent applications claiming a component of a laser, with Schawlow having filed first in July 1958, followed by Gould in April 1959. An interference proceeding was initiated, whereby the right of priority between two inventors of one invention is determined. As the junior party, or the inventor who was second to file, in an interference before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), Gould bore the burden of showing, under 35 U.S.C. §102(g) that he was the prior inventor and that he had engaged in reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice from just before Schawlow’s filing date up to his own. After reviewing testimony and a lab notebook by Gould, the BPAI found that certain lapses in diligence could not be accounted for and failed to award him priority, a decision he appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Worley, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 237,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.