Huntington v. Brown

D.C. Circuit

Huntington v. Brown

277 F. 624, 51 App. D.C. 225, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2801

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1922

DocketNo. 1426

StatusPublished

This text of 277 F. 624 (Huntington v. Brown) 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

Huntington v. Brown, 277 F. 624, 51 App. D.C. 225, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2801 (D.C. Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This interference relates to an electric reflector heater comprised of a parabolic reflector at the focal point of which and transverse to the axis thereof is mounted an electrie heating element.

The invention was made by one of the parties in 1915. Huntington was in the employ of the Majestic Electric Development Company, of which Brown was a director. The' case turns solely upon the question of originality. Upon the issue of fact thus involved, priority was awarded to Brown by the Board of Examiners in Chief and by the Commissioner. A careful review of their opinions and of the evidence convinces us that their conclusion was correct. Huntington has failed to overcome the burden imposed upon him as junior party.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This interference relates to an electric reflector heater comprised of a parabolic reflector at the focal point of which and transverse to the axis thereof is mounted an electrie heating element.

The invention was made by one of the parties in 1915. Huntington was in the employ of the Majestic Electric Development Company, of which Brown was a director. The' case turns solely upon the question of originality. Upon the issue of fact thus involved, priority was awarded to Brown by the Board of Examiners in Chief and by the Commissioner. A careful review of their opinions and of the evidence convinces us that their conclusion was correct. Huntington has failed to overcome the burden imposed upon him as junior party.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F. 624, 51 App. D.C. 225, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntington-v-brown-cadc-1922.