1933. As a result of the destruction of the defense of laches in applying for "divisional" applications, those familiar with a given field of industry may now insert speculative conjectures as disclosures in various applications and permit them to lie dormant until a competitor reduces speculation to practicality. Then, by the device of a "divisional," or if need be, as here, by "divisional" on "divisional," such a competitor can be pursued with infringement suits and harassed into surrendering his business to an ingeniously dilatory applicant. Thus, sweeping, indefinite and unclaimed disclosures, and adroit use of "divisionals"-which laches and unreasonable delay are no longer sufficient to bar-are permitted to extend a patent's statutory life and to increase a patentee's reward beyond that granted by Congress.

"The patent laws are founded in a large public policy to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The public, therefore, is a most material party to, and should be duly considered in, every application for a patent. . . . But the arts and sciences will certainly not be promoted by giving encouragement to inventors to withhold and conceal their inventions for an indefinite time, or to a time when they may use and apply their inventions to their own exclusive advantage, irrespective of the public benefit, and certainly not if the inventor is allowed to conceal his invention to be brought forward in some after time to thwart and defeat a more diligent and active inventor, who has placed the benefit of his invention within the reach and knowledge of the public.' " 13

12

13

Cf., Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200.

Woodbridge v. United States, supra, 61.

Syllabus.

GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. v. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 357. Argued December 13, 14, 1937.-Decided May 2, 1938. 1. Review by certiorari is confined to questions specifically brought forward by the petition for the writ. P. 177.

The supporting brief is not a part of the petition for this purpose; specifications of error in that brief do not expand or add to the questions stated in the petition; they serve merely to identify and challenge rulings upon which is grounded ultimate decision of the matter involved. P. 178.

2. A writ of certiorari will not be granted in a patent case to bring up questions of acquiescence and estoppel dependent on questions of fact, as to which there were concurrent findings below; nor to review questions of anticipation and invention as to which there is no conflict between decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. P. 178.

3. The owner of patents in vacuum tube amplifiers used the inventions commercially, through its exclusively licensed subsidiaries, in the business of making talking-picture equipment embodying the inventions and supplying the equipment to theaters. It also granted non-exclusive licenses to others expressly limited to the making and selling of the patented amplifiers for private uses, namely, for radio broadcast reception, radio amateur reception, and radio experimental reception. One of the non-exclusive licensees made the patented amplifiers and sold them to a talking pictures corporation, knowing that the purchaser would include them in talking-picture equipment to be leased to theaters. Both parties knew the restrictions of the vendor's license and intentionally disregarded notices stating those restrictions, which were affixed to the articles. Held, that the restrictions of the vendor's license were valid under the patent law; that the purchaser was not "a purchaser in the ordinary channels of trade"; that the sales were not sales under the patent, but were without authority from the patent-owner; and that both vendor and purchaser were guilty of infringement. P. 179.

The effect of the license notice is not considered.

4. The concurrent findings of the two courts below, as to two of the patents involved in this litigation, that there was no public use of the inventions prior to the dates of divisional applications on which the patents issued, are supported by evidence and accepted by this Court. P. 182.

5. Inventions, disclosed but not claimed in applications for patent, were subsequently claimed and patented through continuation applications voluntarily filed by the applicant. The patentee's use, which was the only "public use," was for less than two years prior to the original applications but for more than two years prior to the continuation applications. Held that the continuation applications were in time, no adverse rights having intervened more than two years before they were filed, and the effective dates of the claims therein were the dates of the original applications. R. S. § 4886. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Gutmann Co., ante, p.

159. P. 182.

91 F. 2d 922, affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 302 U. S. 674, to review the affirmance of decrees sustaining patents, enjoining infringement, and ordering accountings, in three suits that were heard together. On May 31, a rehearing was ordered upon the first two of the questions stated on p. 177 of this opinion. Messrs. Samuel E. Darby, Jr. and Ephraim Berliner for petitioner.

Mr. Merrell E. Clark, with whom Mr. Henry R. Ashton was on the brief, for respondents.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Three suits were brought by respondents against petitioner in the district court for the southern district of New York to restrain infringements, based on different patents for inventions in vacuum tube amplifiers which have been used in wire and radio telephony, talking motion pictures, and other fields. In all there were in suit seven patents. The cases were tried together and are treated as one. The lower courts held one of the patents invalid, and that ruling is not challenged here. They con

curred in holding six of the patents valid and infringed by petitioner. 16 F. Supp. 293; 91 F. (2d) 922. This Court granted a writ of certiorari.

Under the caption "Questions Presented" the petition for writ of certiorari submits the following:

"1. Can the owner of a patent, by means thereof, restrict the use made of a device manufactured under the patent, after the device has passed into the hands of a purchaser in the ordinary channels of trade, and full consideration paid therefor?

"2. Can a patent owner, merely by a license notice' attached to a device made under the patent, and sold in the ordinary channels of trade, place an enforceable restriction on the purchaser thereof as to the use to which the purchaser may put the device?

"3. Can an inventor who has filed an application for patent, showing and describing but not claiming certain inventions, obtain a valid patent for said inventions by voluntarily filing a 'divisional' or 'continuation' application for said unclaimed inventions more than two years subsequent to public use of the said unclaimed inventions by him or his assignee or licensee?"

The brief supporting the petition contains specifications of error relating to decision of two other questions. One is whether, by acceptance and retention of royalties paid by the licensed manufacturer, respondents acquiesced in the infringement and are estopped from maintaining the suit. The other is whether the patents upheld are invalid because of anticipation by, or want of invention over, the prior patented art. That brief is confined to the three questions definitely stated in the petition. But petitioner's brief on the merits extends to the additional questions reflected by the specification of errors.

1. Our consideration of the case will be limited to the questions specifically brought forward by the petition.

81638-38--12

Rule 38, paragraph 2, contains the following. "The petition shall contain only a summary and short statement of the matter involved and the reasons relied on for the allowance of the writ. A supporting brief may be included in the petition, but, whether so included or presented separately, it must be direct, concise and in conformity with Rules 26 and 27. A failure to comply with these requirements will be a sufficient reason for denying the petition. . . Evidently petitioner, by the "Questions Presented" intended to state the issues it deemed to arise on its "statement of the matter involved," for neither the petition nor supporting brief purport to apply for review of any other question. Whether included in the petition, or separately presented, the supporting brief is not a part of the petition, at least for the purpose of stating the questions on which review is sought. The specifications of error in that brief do not expand or add to the questions stated in the petition; they serve merely to identify and challenge rulings upon which is grounded ultimate decision of the matter involved.

There is nothing in the lower courts' decision on either of the added questions to warrant review here. Whether respondents acquiesced in the infringement and are estopped depends upon the facts. Granting of the writ would not be warranted merely to review the evidence or inferences drawn from it. Southern Power Co. v. N. C. Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508. United States v. Johnston, 268 U. S. 220, 227. Moreover, the decision on that point rests on concurrent findings. They are not to be disturbed unless plainly without support. United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1, 14. United States v. McGowan, 290 U. S. 592. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464. There is evidence to support them. Nor would the writ be granted to review the questions of anticipation and invention that petitioner argues, for as to