Sagansky v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• inherent chemical property sufficient for utility to support later claim to chemical compound where no claim was made to compound's use
• untimely service not excused for good cause where plaintiff made five attempts to serve defendant and then ceased its efforts
• untimely service not excused for good cause where plaintiff made five attempts to serve defendant and then ceased its efforts during the remaining four years of the action
• ordinance providing that no appeal operates to stay revocation of license did not divest judiciary of power to grant discretionary stay in the absence of clearer legislative intent to contrary
• lack of prejudice to defendant a pertinent factor in determining whether good cause exists
• “[Tjhe earlier and later applications need not use identical words, if the earlier application shows the subject matter that is claimed in the later application, with adequate description as to how to obtain it.”