Adams v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. The disclosures in a patent application are addressed to those skilled in the art to which the inventions therein disclosed pertain, and therefore the valuation of such an application must be made in the light of the value which would be considered as attaching thereto by those skilled in that particular art. 2. A collateral attack may not be made in a proceeding before this Board upon the validity of a patent and, therefore, in the absence of controlling judicial…
Read the full summary
1. The disclosures in a patent application are addressed to those skilled in the art to which the inventions therein disclosed pertain, and therefore the valuation of such an application must be made in the light of the value which would be considered as attaching thereto by those skilled in that particular art. 2. A collateral attack may not be made in a proceeding before this Board upon the validity of a patent and, therefore, in the absence of controlling judicial determinations to the contrary, we must accept the patents as validly issued on the basis of the patent applications and that…
1Opinion of the Court
*100OPINION.
Seawell:
The parties are in agreement that the primary issue here presented for determination is the March 1, 1913, value of certain patent applications which were held by the petitioner on March 1, 1913. The history of the applications in question from the time they were filed in the Patent Office in 1909 until they ripened into patents in 1919 and 1920, and the manner in which the issue here involved arises, are set forth in much detail in our findings and will not be repeated except in a brief summary. In short, what occurred was that the petitioner, an inventor, had been engaged…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Oklahoma v. TextasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Lawther v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- A. B. Dick Co. v. BarnettDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Adams v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931