Thompson v. Storrie

D.C. Circuit

Thompson v. Storrie

47 App. D.C. 383, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1918

DocketNo. 1136

StatusPublished

This text of 47 App. D.C. 383 (Thompson v. Storrie) 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

Thompson v. Storrie, 47 App. D.C. 383, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427 (D.C. Cir. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Smyth

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an interference case involving an invention for a shock absorber. Priority was awarded to William Storrie, the junior party, by all the tribunals of the Patent Office. No testimony was taken, but the parties stipulated that the testimony in another case between the same parties comprehending the same subject should be used. The decision in that case was in favor of Storrie (46 App. D. C. 324) and is a dominant factor in this cause, which the appellant makes no attempt to overcome, but ignores. It has made the questions of law and fact presented here res judicata. Nalle v. Oyster, 36 App. D. C. 36, affirmed on this point in 230 U. S. 165, 51 L. ed. 1439, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1043; Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 42, 42 L. ed. 355, 374, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, and cases cited. In view of this we are at a loss to apprehend upon what theory of law7 the appellant has brought the cause here, thereby harassing the appellee and unnecessarily consuming our time. The Commissioner was right in awarding priority of invention to Storrie, and his-decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Smyth

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an interference case involving an invention for a shock absorber. Priority was awarded to William Storrie, the junior party, by all the tribunals of the Patent Office. No testimony was taken, but the parties stipulated that the testimony in another case between the same parties comprehending the same subject should be used. The decision in that case was in favor of Storrie (46 App. D. C. 324) and is a dominant factor in this cause, which the appellant makes no attempt to overcome, but ignores. It has made the questions of law and fact presented here res judicata. Nalle v. Oyster, 36 App. D. C. 36, affirmed on this point in 230 U. S. 165, 51 L. ed. 1439, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1043; Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 42, 42 L. ed. 355, 374, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, and cases cited. In view of this we are at a loss to apprehend upon what theory of law7 the appellant has brought the cause here, thereby harassing the appellee and unnecessarily consuming our time. The Commissioner was right in awarding priority of invention to Storrie, and his-decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 App. D.C. 383, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-storrie-cadc-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack