Johnson v. Mueser

Supreme Court

Johnson v. Mueser

212 U.S. 283, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 L. Ed. 514, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1811

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 23, 1909

Docket67

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 U.S. 283 (Johnson v. Mueser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 283, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 L. Ed. 514, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1811 (1909).

Pincite

Opinion

; Me. 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.

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

; Me. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 U.S. 283, 29 S. Ct. 390, 53 L. Ed. 514, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-mueser-scotus-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack