the National-Standard Company, but at the time of these
disclosures he was already working on the oxides for the Brush
Development Company in accordance with his previous work in
producing oxides 277 and 278 and that the Armour method disclosed
to him by National-Standard meant nothing, since they had been
previously making the high coercive force oxides for Brush (R.
Dr. Rodrian's testimony was straight-forward, positive and had
all the earmarks of stability.
Defendant Williams and its predecessor Mepham Corporation in
1941 produced oxides identical in all respects to the patented
oxides and offered them for sale in 1942, retained samples and
the method of preparing the oxides, and when high coercive force
oxides were requested readily produced them — this long before
any disclosure of the Camras method.
The activities of Mepham constitute prior public knowledge and
use, as well as an offer of sale of oxides having the same
criteria as claimed by Camras as his invention.
In April, 1946, Minnesota disclosed to Armour a magnetic oxide
tape with which it had been working and asked Armour if it was
interested in the use of magnetic tape for recording. Armour
advised Minnesota that it had experimented with tapes using
oxides having a considerably higher coercive force than that
shown to Armour by Minnesota, and a sample of Armour's tape was
given to Minnesota. Minnesota caused tests to be made of the
oxide, as coated on the tape, to determine its magnetic
properties (R. 2732). Thereafter, Minnesota requested, and Armour
furnished, ten pounds of the oxides to Minnesota for its use in
coating tape (R. 2733, 2737, 2738). This ten pounds of material
was received by Minnesota from Armour prior to July 12, 1946, (R.
2739, 2740) and was utilized in coating tapes. Upon completion
Minnesota sent one or two reels to Armour and retained the
balance. The oxides furnished by Armour to Minnesota were the
same oxides later patented by Camras.
Plaintiffs contend that this use of the oxides and tapes was
for purely experimental purposes and that the oxides were
forwarded to Minnesota with the understanding that the products
would be retained in secrecy. This allegation, however, is not
borne out by the record. Camras testified that these materials
were forwarded to Minnesota for testing to see if they would like
to go into the manufacture of such tapes (R. 378). Nowhere in the
record does it appear that these oxides were forwarded to
Minnesota under any cloak of secrecy. It was a disclosure of the
oxides and their uses.
Not only were such oxides sent to Minnesota but portions of the
oxides were also forwarded to DuPont Company on June 20, 1946.
Plaintiffs do not contend there was an agreement of secrecy
existing between Armour and DuPont but state there is no showing
in the record that these materials were ever received by DuPont
and thus there is a failure to show public use.
Paragraph (b), Section 102, Title 35 U.S. Code, provides that
the right to a patent is lost where the product was in public use
or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date
of the application for patent. The term "public use" was defined
by the United States Supreme Court in Egbert v. Lippmann,
104 U.S. 333, 26 L.Ed. 755, wherein a patent for an invention
concerning corset stays was denied for the reason that the
inventor had permitted his fiancee to wear the patented corset
stays more than the permitted period before applying for a
patent. The court held: "We remark, secondly, that, whether the
use of an invention is public or private does not necessarily
depend upon the number of persons to whom its use is known. If an
inventor, having made his device, gives or sells it to another,
to be used by the donee or vendee, without limitation or
restriction, or injunction
of secrecy, and it is so used, such use is public * * *"
The patented oxides and their use as a magnetic tape recording
media were in public use more than one year prior to the
application for patent.
Patentability of invention must be determined in accordance
with the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 United States
"§ 101. Inventions patentable
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
"§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and
loss of right to patent
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
"(a) the invention was known or used by others in
this country, or patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country, before the
invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
"(b) the invention was patented or described in a
printed publication in this or a foreign country or
in public use or on sale in this country, more than
one year prior to the date of the application for
patent in the United States, or
"(c) he has abandoned the invention, or