Townsend v Smith

1. Townsend v Smith Reduction to practice: 11/10/1921 [Constructive Reduction to Practice: c. 11/14/1921] Townsend Conception: 6/1/1921 Conception: 10/19/1921 Smith

2. Townsend v Smith • P. 444: “Conception consists in the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive art.” • “All that remains . . . [is] construction . . .”

3. Basic Priority Rule “Townsend was the first to conceive and the first to reduce to practice. . . [T]here being no abandonment or negligence since reduction to practice, Townsend is entitled to priority” -- 445

4. Townsend’s Timeline Reduction to practice: 6/1/1923 Conception: 6/1/1921 Smith: Conceive and R to P within 2 months

5. Christie v Seybold Christie Reduction to practice: 7/12/1886 Filed: 6/7/1889 Conception: Summer 1886 Conception: 10/1885 R to P: 4/1889 Filed: 6/6/1889 Seybold

6. Legal Standard P. 451: “[T]he man who first reduces an invention to practice is prima facie the first and true inventor, but that the man who first conceives . . . [an invention] may date his patentable invention back to the time of its conception . . .”

7. The role of diligence “The burden is on the second reducer to practice to show the prior conception, and to establish the connection between that conception and his reduction to practice by proof of due diligence . . .” – p. 452

8. Christie v Seybold Christie Reduction to practice Conception Conception R to P ONLY Seybold’s diligence matters

9. Christie Reduction to practice Conception C R to P Seybold’s Diligence period begins JUST PRIOR to Christie’s Conception

10. 35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) • Interferences – (g)(1) • Anticipation – (g)(2) • Common priority rule – stated in (g)(2)