Shoemaker v. Robertson

54 F.2d 456, 60 App. D.C. 345, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3936
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedNovember 30, 1931
DocketNo. 5209
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 54 F.2d 456 (Shoemaker v. Robertson) 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
Shoemaker v. Robertson, 54 F.2d 456, 60 App. D.C. 345, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3936 (D.C. Cir. 1931).

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellant’s bill (assumed to be authorized by section 4915, R. S. [35 USCA § 63]) against the Commissioner of Patents for the issuance of a patent to appellant.

On March 28, 1929, appellant filed with the Patent Office what he contended was a proper application for a patent. The Patent Office held that the application did not conform to the rules of the office, in that it had been signed by the applicant in but one place instead of in three places, and therefore refused to receive it as an application. Thereupon the applicant filed his bill.

In Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 68, 5 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. Ed. 656, it was ruled that the remedy by bill in equity under section 4915, R. S. (35 USCA • § 63), applies only when the Commissioner decides to reject an application for a patent on the ground that the applicant is not on the merits entitled to it. In the present ease the Commissioner did not reject the application on the merits; he refused to consider it at all.

As to the proper remedy, if any, see Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 S.Ct. 416, 48 L. Ed. 555.

Decree affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Rendleman v. Ladd
197 F. Supp. 304 (District of Columbia, 1961)
Gold Seal Company v. Weeks
129 F. Supp. 928 (District of Columbia, 1955)
Gilbert v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents
182 F.2d 389 (D.C. Circuit, 1950)
Clark v. Resinous Products & Chemical Co.
74 F. Supp. 309 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)
Hoover Co. v. Coe
325 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1945)
W. M. Welch Mfg. Co. v. Coe
149 F.2d 12 (D.C. Circuit, 1945)
Cherry-Burrell Corporation v. Coe
143 F.2d 372 (D.C. Circuit, 1944)
Chessin v. Robertson
63 F.2d 267 (D.C. Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 F.2d 456, 60 App. D.C. 345, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemaker-v-robertson-cadc-1931.