[4] But despite his invention's success, and although he was born to a wealthy Quaker family, he would die impoverished in 1834, having exhausted his funds on patent infringement suits.

The district court issued a rule nisi, ordering Charles Wood and Gilbert Brundage to appear and show cause why their patent should not be invalidated.

And if sufficient cause shall not be shown to the contrary, the rule shall be made absolute, and thereupon the said judge shall order process to be issued against such patentee, or his executors, administrators or assigns, with costs of suit.

And in case no sufficient cause shall be shown to the contrary, or if it shall appear that the patentee was not the true inventor or discoverer, judgment shall be rendered by such court for the repeal of such patent; and if the party, at whose complaint, the process issued, shall have judgment given against him, he shall pay all such costs, as the defendant shall be put to, in defending the suit, to be taxed by the court, and recovered in due course of law.

He reasoned that even if it might be constitutional for Congress to allow patents to be revoked by summary proceedings, that could not be assumed to be the case unless it was spelled out in the statute.

The specific statutory interpretation performed by Justice Story became obsolete when the Patent Act of 1836 took effect, Ex parte Wood has never been cited in a Supreme Court opinion.