Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

261 F.2d 752, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 1958

Docket14438

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 261 F.2d 752 (Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady v. Robert C. Watson, 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

Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, 261 F.2d 752, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 286 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

More than sixty days after the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office rejecting the claims of their application for patent appellants filed a complaint in the District Court purporting to be pursuant to “Revised Statutes, Section 4915.” We construe this as intended to be under the successor statute, 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952). The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the motion and at the same time denied a motion of appellants for leave to amend their complaint. This appeal followed.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint and we think the motion to dismiss was properly granted since appellants’ complaint was not timely filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952) and Rule 304 of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 35 U.S.C. Appendix, 22 Fed.Reg. 5770 (1957), amending 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (1952).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

More than sixty days after the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office rejecting the claims of their application for patent appellants filed a complaint in the District Court purporting to be pursuant to “Revised Statutes, Section 4915.” We construe this as intended to be under the successor statute, 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952). The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the motion and at the same time denied a motion of appellants for leave to amend their complaint. This appeal followed.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint and we think the motion to dismiss was properly granted since appellants’ complaint was not timely filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952) and Rule 304 of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 35 U.S.C. Appendix, 22 Fed.Reg. 5770 (1957), amending 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (1952).

Affirmed.

MacArthur Liquors, Inc. v. Palisades Citizens Association, Incorporated, Palisades Citizens Association, Incorporated v. Frank E. Weakly, Members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia, and MacArthur Liquors, Inc., a Corporation, (Two Cases). Frank E. Weakly, Members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia v. Palisades Citizens Association, Inc.

265 F.2d 372 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 F.2d 752, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-p-grady-and-john-b-grady-v-robert-c-watson-commissioner-of-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack