Master, Wardens, Searchers, Assistants and Commonalty of the Co. Of Cutlers in Hallamshire in County of York v. Sheffield Steel Corp

215 F.2d 285, 42 C.C.P.A. 726
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedSeptember 15, 1954
DocketPatent Appeal 6152
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 215 F.2d 285 (Master, Wardens, Searchers, Assistants and Commonalty of the Co. Of Cutlers in Hallamshire in County of York v. Sheffield Steel Corp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Master, Wardens, Searchers, Assistants and Commonalty of the Co. Of Cutlers in Hallamshire in County of York v. Sheffield Steel Corp, 215 F.2d 285, 42 C.C.P.A. 726 (ccpa 1954).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents reversing and remanding the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, granting appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Appellee has here moved to dismiss said appeal on the grounds that the decision appealed from is an interlocutory decision and therefore not appeal-able.

The decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Patents is essentially an order denying a motion for summary judgment. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order, and as such is not a proper order for appeal. Marcus Breier Sons, Inc. v. Marylo Fabrics, Inc., 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 29. Since this is not a final judgment no appeal can be taken. “A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 [286]*286U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911, and cases therein cited. The reason for not allowing appeals from such judgments is to prevent piecemeal litigation. Catlin v. United States, supra.

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Wagner Shokai, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Wako
699 F.2d 1390 (Federal Circuit, 1983)
Toro Co. v. Hardigg Industries, Inc.
549 F.2d 785 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1977)
Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co.
467 F.2d 501 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1972)
Seamless Rubber Co. v. Ethicon, Inc.
268 F.2d 231 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 F.2d 285, 42 C.C.P.A. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/master-wardens-searchers-assistants-and-commonalty-of-the-co-of-cutlers-ccpa-1954.