Legal Opinion
Leeds v. Mosbacher
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 13, 1990No. Civ. A. 89-1857PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
REVERCOMB, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jackson Leeds here challenges the Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) decision requiring plaintiff to take and pass an examination as a condition to being registered to practice before the PTO in patent cases. At bar are Defendants Honorable Robert A. Mosbacher, Honorable Donald Quigg, Cameron Weiffenbach, and the United States’s motion to affirm the Patent Commissioner’s decision and plaintiff’s motion to quash the Commissioner’s decision. Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s protective…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- California v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Potomac Electric Power Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Consolidated Rail Corporation, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Kingsland v. DorseySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Maresca v. Commissioner of Patents & TrademarksDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1994
- Philip A. Premysler v. Bruce A. Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Hsuan-Yeh Chang v. KapposDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Philip A. Premysler v. Bruce A. Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996