Godtfredsen v. Banner
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1ConcurrenceMiller, Judge
I agree with the majority’s dismissal of the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition. However, I find it unnecessary to decide, as the majority does, that substitution of a count in an interference is not ancillary to priority. Instead, I would premise dismissal on appellant’s failure to demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction based on authority other than the All Writs Act itself, “in aid of” which a writ could be issued. See Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 23-26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1957); Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz, 590 F.2d 915, 200 USPQ…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Nitz v. EhrenreichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Josserand v. TaylorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
- Aelony v. Urs ArniCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- Formica Corp. v. LefkowitzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.