Seng v. Dann

Customs and Patent Appeals

Seng v. Dann

542 F.2d 568, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 432, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 130

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1976

DocketPatent Appeal No. 76-715

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 542 F.2d 568 (Seng v. Dann) 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

Seng v. Dann, 542 F.2d 568, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 432, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 130 (ccpa 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

MILLER, Judge.

Having considered Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss said petition, and Petitioners’ Reply; also, Memorandum by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and Petitioners’ Reply thereto—

The court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the petition. Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974).

The court concludes that petitioners have not shown that the action of the board complained of constituted an abuse of discretion. Nor has it been shown that, in the event of an award of priority adverse to petitioners, petitioners will not have an adequate appellate remedy. Moreover, the fact that petitioners may be put to further time and expense is not a sufficient basis for granting the petition. Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition be denied. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is moot.

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