Griffith v. Kanamaru
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
816 F.2d 624, 2 USPQ2d 1361 (1987)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Owen Griffith (plaintiff) established the concept for an aminocarnitine compounds invention on or before June 30, 1981. He reduced the concept to practice on January 11, 1984. In the interim, on November 17, 1982, Tsuneo Kanamaru (defendant) filed for a patent for the same invention. Griffith claimed that the delay in his reduction of the concept to practice was on account of his university’s search for outside funding, as well as his waiting for a specific graduate student to enroll in the university to help on the project. Griffith claimed that he had promised the student that she could work on this particular project after she enrolled. During the period between Griffith coming up with the concept and reducing it to practice, Griffith often put aside the aminocarnitine work to focus on other projects. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interference found in favor of Kanamaru. Griffith appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nichols, S.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
