George Spector v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

George Spector v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

296 F.2d 420, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 298

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 1961

Docket16443

StatusPublished

This text of 296 F.2d 420 (George Spector v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Spector v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, 296 F.2d 420, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 298 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Solicitor of the Patent Office charged appellant, an authorized “patent agent”, with violating Patent Office Rule 345, 35 U.S.C.A.Appendix, which forbids advertising. We sustained the rule in Evans v. Watson, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 108, 269 F.2d 775, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 900, 80 S.Ct. 213, 4 L.Ed.2d 157. .

The First Assistant Commissioner of Patents held a hearing. Appellant testified that he had not himself filed any patent applications which resulted from his advertisements, and did not know that any were on file, but had aided in preparing five or six such applications. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed for lack of evidence the Solicitor’s charge numbered 1, filed February 4, 1960, but sustained two charges of advertising and ordered appellant excluded “from practice as a patent agent in any application before the United States Patent Office, without prejudice to his registration after one year and after full compliance with the requirements of Rule 341, as in the ease of one seeking registration who had not previously been registered.”

Appellant applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for review. The court held a hearing and on April 21, 1961 entered an order sustaining the Patent Office, from which this appeal is taken. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The Solicitor of the Patent Office charged appellant, an authorized “patent agent”, with violating Patent Office Rule 345, 35 U.S.C.A.Appendix, which forbids advertising. We sustained the rule in Evans v. Watson, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 108, 269 F.2d 775, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 900, 80 S.Ct. 213, 4 L.Ed.2d 157. .

The First Assistant Commissioner of Patents held a hearing. Appellant testified that he had not himself filed any patent applications which resulted from his advertisements, and did not know that any were on file, but had aided in preparing five or six such applications. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed for lack of evidence the Solicitor’s charge numbered 1, filed February 4, 1960, but sustained two charges of advertising and ordered appellant excluded “from practice as a patent agent in any application before the United States Patent Office, without prejudice to his registration after one year and after full compliance with the requirements of Rule 341, as in the ease of one seeking registration who had not previously been registered.”

Appellant applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for review. The court held a hearing and on April 21, 1961 entered an order sustaining the Patent Office, from which this appeal is taken. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F.2d 420, 111 U.S. App. D.C. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-spector-v-david-l-ladd-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack