CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


JOHNSON V. MUESER, 212 U. S. 283 (1909)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 212 U. S. 283 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 283 (1909)

Johnson v. Mueser

No. 67

Argued January 12, 1909

Decided February 23, 1909

212 U.S. 283

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1, followed to effect that decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in appeals from the Commissioner of Patents are not reviewable by this Court.

Writ of error to review 29 App.D.C. 61 dismissed, and certiorari denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 212 U. S. 284

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE Fuller delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a proceeding of interference in which the examiner of interferences awarded priority to Mueser. This decision was in turn affirmed by the examiners-in-chief and by the Commissioner. From the decision of the Commissioner, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and that court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, and directed that its own decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents, as required by law. The court held that, in such a proceeding, it would not review the action of the Patent Office in deciding that the issue was a patentable one, but would confine its consideration to the question of priority alone. 29 App.D.C. 61. And, in the course of its opinion the court said:

"It must be borne in mind that the final judgment of this court entitling a claimant to a patent, in either an ex parte or an interference proceeding, is not conclusive of either patentability or priority. The patent, when issued, may be attacked in the courts by parties whose interests may be affected by the monopoly claimed thereunder, and the defeated party has another remedy by proceeding in a court of equity, as provided in § 4915, Rev.Stat."

We think our ruling in Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1, is applicable, and that this writ of error must be disposed of accordingly. The application for certiorari must take the same course.

Writ of error dismissed.

Certiorari denied.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED