Legal Opinion

United States Ex. Rel. Lowry & Planters Compress Co. v. Allen

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 10, 1906No. 56PublishedCited by 19 opinions

ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. T^he facts are stated in the opinion. An interference is a proceeding of a judicial character instituted by the Commissioner of Patents between rival applicants to determine priority of invention and patentability and is as much a fundamental question as priority, and under §§ 482 and 4909, Rev. Stat., all matters going to the applicant’s right to a patent are appealable and must be adjudicated.

Read the full summary

ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. T^he facts are stated in the opinion. An interference is a proceeding of a judicial character instituted by the Commissioner of Patents between rival applicants to determine priority of invention and patentability and is as much a fundamental question as priority, and under §§ 482 and 4909, Rev. Stat., all matters going to the applicant’s right to a patent are appealable and must be adjudicated. Palmer v. Lozier, 90 Fed. Rep. 732; Podlesak v. Mclnnerney, 120 O. G. 2127. In interpreting any statute-in the absence of ambiguity, the…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court..This is a petition for mandamus filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, requiring the" Commissioner of Patents to direct the board of examiners in chief to reinstate and take jurisdiction of the appeal of petitioners from the decision of the primary examiner, refusing to dissolve an interference between a patent granted to him and an application for a patent by one William L. Spoon. The Supreme Court granted the. mandamus. Its judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

The question in the case is, whether the rule of the Patent Office…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
  2. Gilbert v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  3. Dunkley Co. v. Central California CanneriesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
  4. Josserand v. TaylorCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
  5. Westinghouse v. HienCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API