Keith v. Land

D.C. Circuit

Keith v. Land

2 F.2d 1013, 55 App. D.C. 398, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2227

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1924

DocketNo. 1679

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 F.2d 1013 (Keith v. Land) 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

Keith v. Land, 2 F.2d 1013, 55 App. D.C. 398, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2227 (D.C. Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority of invention to appellee, Land. The decision is based upon a motion by appellee for judgment, on the ground that appellants, having delayed four years after the grant of the patent in issue to Land before presenting the claims and seeking an interference, are gnilty of laches, and therefore estopped from claiming the invention. In the absence of any satisfactory reason for delay, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, on the authority of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; In re Fritts, 45 App. D. C. 211; Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U. S. 463, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority of invention to appellee, Land. The decision is based upon a motion by appellee for judgment, on the ground that appellants, having delayed four years after the grant of the patent in issue to Land before presenting the claims and seeking an interference, are gnilty of laches, and therefore estopped from claiming the invention. In the absence of any satisfactory reason for delay, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, on the authority of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; In re Fritts, 45 App. D. C. 211; Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U. S. 463, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F.2d 1013, 55 App. D.C. 398, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-v-land-cadc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack