Sundstrand v. Gubelmann

D.C. Circuit

Sundstrand v. Gubelmann

4 F.2d 166, 55 App. D.C. 200, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1925

DocketNo. 1603

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 F.2d 166 (Sundstrand v. Gubelmann) 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

Sundstrand v. Gubelmann, 4 F.2d 166, 55 App. D.C. 200, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinions

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a derision of the Acting Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding, reversing the decision of the Examiners in Chief and awarding priority to the appellee Gubelmann.

[167]*167Sundstrand’s original application was filed March 14, 1914, and a patent containing the claims of the issue was granted September 26, 1916. Gubelmann copied these claims on November 23, 1918, but made no showing that his failure to copy them within two years from the issuance of the patent was due to special circumstances justifying the delay. Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 139, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; Webster Co. v. Splitdorf Co., 264 U. S. 463, 471, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792. In behalf of Gubelmann it is contended that appellant is estopped to insist upon that issue here, not having raised it below.' To this we cannot assent. Unless a showing is made of special circumstances justifying the delay in copying claims from an issued patent, the two-year limit applies, and there is no basis for the declaration of an interference, so that the award of a patent in such a situation would be an idle ceremony. It is apparent, therefore, that this jurisdictional question may be raised at any time.

Chapman v. Boede, 54 App. D. C. 209, 296 F. 956, is not in point, since it there appeared that the subject-matter of the copied claims was disclosed and claimed in a eopending application.

The decision is reversed.

Reversed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a derision of the Acting Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding, reversing the decision of the Examiners in Chief and awarding priority to the appellee Gubelmann.

[167]*167Sundstrand’s original application was filed March 14, 1914, and a patent containing the claims of the issue was granted September 26, 1916. Gubelmann copied these claims on November 23, 1918, but made no showing that his failure to copy them within two years from the issuance of the patent was due to special circumstances justifying the delay. Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 139, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; Webster Co. v. Splitdorf Co., 264 U. S. 463, 471, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792. In behalf of Gubelmann it is contended that appellant is estopped to insist upon that issue here, not having raised it below.' To this we cannot assent. Unless a showing is made of special circumstances justifying the delay in copying claims from an issued patent, the two-year limit applies, and there is no basis for the declaration of an interference, so that the award of a patent in such a situation would be an idle ceremony. It is apparent, therefore, that this jurisdictional question may be raised at any time.

Chapman v. Boede, 54 App. D. C. 209, 296 F. 956, is not in point, since it there appeared that the subject-matter of the copied claims was disclosed and claimed in a eopending application.

The decision is reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F.2d 166, 55 App. D.C. 200, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sundstrand-v-gubelmann-cadc-1925.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack