Scott v. Finney
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
34 F.3d 1058, 32 USPQ2d 1115 (1994)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Scott (plaintiff) and Finney (defendant) each filed patent applications claiming a penile implant, where Finney was the senior party, having filed a parent patent application May 15, 1980, and Scott was the junior party, having a priority date of May 15, 1981. An interference proceeding before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences was held. Prior to this interference, however, the parties had engaged in another interference proceeding to a broader subject matter of penile implants, and Scott had been awarded priority. The present interference, however, involved a narrowed invention. Scott attempted to show prior reduction to practice. The Board held that Scott failed to show sufficient testing after conception to determine if the invention actually worked. In the absence of evidence that Scott tested his invention to ensure that it functioned, the Board awarded priority to Finney as the senior party. Scott appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
