JOHNSON
v.
MUESER

U.S. | 1909-02-23
No. 67
212 U.S. 283 Supreme Court of the United States (1909) Caution
Also reported at: 53 L. Ed. 514 · 29 S. Ct. 390 · 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1811 · SCDB 1908-075
Cited by 14 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Johnson and Mueser were parties to a patent interference proceeding in which priority of invention was disputed, with the Patent Office awarding priority to Mueser, a decision affirmed through the administrative appeals process and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error and denied certiorari, applying its precedent in Frasch v. Moore and affirming that courts reviewing patent interference decisions may examine priority but not the underlying patentability of the invention, which remains subject to challenge in other proceedings.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
; Me. Chief Justice Fullee

; Mr. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.

This was á proceeding of interference in which the examiner of interferences awarded priority to Mueser. This decision was in turn affirmed by the examiners-hu-chiefs 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 confiné its consideration to the question of priority alone. 29 App. D. C; 61. And in the course df 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hygienic Prods. Co. v. COE, 85 F.2d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
    …tion of a trademark when rejected by the Commissioner. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U.S. 209, 43 S.Ct. 541, 67 L.Ed. 953; Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., 256 U.S. 35, 39, 41 S.Ct. 405, 65 L.Ed. 816; Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285, 291, 29 S.Ct. 390, 53 L.Ed. 515.” After pointing out the four grounds enumerated in section 9 of the Trade-Mark Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 89) on. which appeal lies to the District Court of Appeals, the court said: “The next inquiry is whether in addition to such appeal and…
  • Alumatone Corp. v. Vita-Var Corp., 183 F.2d 612 (C.C.P.A. 1950)
    …a trade-mark when rejected by the Commissioner. American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U.S. 209, 43 S.Ct. 541, 67 L.Ed. 953; Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co., 256 U.S. 35, 39, 41 S.Ct. 405, 65 L.Ed. 816; Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285, 291, 29 S.Ct. 390, 53 L.Ed. 515. Appellee’s argument in support of its position on the point in question is purely technical. Discriminatory distinctions with respect to matters of form which result in repetitious litigation are discouraged in law not only by the re…
  • Alexandrine v. COE, 71 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1934)
    …in section 4915, R. S. We have in the cases cited [American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U. S. 209, 43 S. Ct. 541, 67 L. Ed. 953; Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., 256 U. S. 35, 39, 41 S. Ct. 405, 65 L. Ed. 816; Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U. S. 285, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 L. Ed. 515] given the closing words of section 9 [of the Trade Mark Act] a liberal construction in the view that Congress intended by them to give every remedy in respect to trade-marks that is afforded in proceedings as to patents, and have hel…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw