In re Lees

D.C. Circuit

In re Lees

269 F. 679, 50 App. D.C. 163, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1906

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1920

DocketNo. 1340

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 F. 679 (In re Lees) 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

In re Lees, 269 F. 679, 50 App. D.C. 163, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1906 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to reissue appellant’s patent with broadened claims; the application having been filed about two years and five months after the granting of the patent.

In the affidavit accompanying the application for reissue, appellant states that he was unskilled in patent matters, relied upon his solicitor, and only recently discovered that his claims were not as broad as his invention. Since it is settled law that a patent will not be reissued after the lapse of two years, for the purpose of enlarging [680]*680its claims, unless special circumstances are shown to excuse the delay (Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. Ed. 783; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 36 L. Ed. 658; In re Starkey, 21 App. D. C. 519; In re Schneider, 49 App. D. C. 204, 262 Fed. 718), it cannot be said that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the Patent Office in ruling that such special circumstances have not been shown here.

It follows that the decision must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to reissue appellant’s patent with broadened claims; the application having been filed about two years and five months after the granting of the patent.

In the affidavit accompanying the application for reissue, appellant states that he was unskilled in patent matters, relied upon his solicitor, and only recently discovered that his claims were not as broad as his invention. Since it is settled law that a patent will not be reissued after the lapse of two years, for the purpose of enlarging [680]*680its claims, unless special circumstances are shown to excuse the delay (Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. Ed. 783; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 36 L. Ed. 658; In re Starkey, 21 App. D. C. 519; In re Schneider, 49 App. D. C. 204, 262 Fed. 718), it cannot be said that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the Patent Office in ruling that such special circumstances have not been shown here.

It follows that the decision must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. 679, 50 App. D.C. 163, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lees-cadc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack