Legal Opinion
Hammer v. Robertson
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 20, 1925No. Nos. 202, 203PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
Hammer, in prosecuting his application for a patent, encountered no opposition frqm other parties claiming the same asserted invention. There was no interference. His only opposition (so to speak) was from the Examiners; i. e., the Office. His was, in common parlance, an ex parte, not an inter partes, proceeding.
By this appeal he seeks to present a question not without interest, viz.: Is there any remedy under R. S. § 4915 (Comp. St. § 9460), for an applicant such as he, who has no successful patentee to sue, and no opponent but the Commissioner himself? On this question we cannot render an…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Butterworth v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States Ex Rel. Chott v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Dover v. GreenwoodDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1910
- Barrett Co. v. EwingCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
3Cited by8 opinions
- Century Distilling Co. v. Continental Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- Hazeltine Corporation v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- Armstrong v. De ForestCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Jamestown Veneer & Plywood Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1936
- Canon v. RobertsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.