Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-21-1923
American Steel Founderies v. Robertson - 262 U.S. 209 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court American Steel Founderies v. Robertson, 262 U.S. 209 (1923) American Steel Founderies v. Robertson No. 291 Argued April 19, 1923 Decided May 21, 1923 262 U.S. 209 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. Under 9 of the Trade Mark Act, which provides that an applicant for registration of a trademark, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, may appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, on complying with the conditions required in case of an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner by an applicant for a patent, and that "the same rules of practice and procedure shall govern in every stage of such proceedings, as far as the same may be applicable," a party whose application for registration of trademark has been rejected by the Commissioner and the Court of Appeals has the remedy by bill in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-12-1923
Woodbridge v. United States - 263 U.S. 50 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923) Woodbridge v. United States No. 51 Argued October 5, 8, 1923 Decided November 12, 1923 263 U.S. 50 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Any practice of an inventor and applicant for patent through which he, deliberately and without excuse, postpones the beginning of the term of his monopoly, and thus puts off the free public enjoyment of the invention, is an evasion of the patent law and defeats its aim. P. 263 U. S. 55 . 2. An inventor of projectiles for rifled cannon having obtained allowance of a patent from the Patent Office, procured the papers to be filed in the secret archives on a statement that he wished this for one year only as an aid in obtaining patent rights abroad, and thereafter, for nearly ten years, deliberately abstained from requesting issuance of his patent in order to postpone the beginning of the patent monopoly until the needs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1923
Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works - 261 U.S. 24 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works, 261 U.S. 24 (1923) Crown Die & Tool Company v. Nye Tool & Machine Works No. 240 Argued January 17, 18, 1923 Decided February 19, 1923 261 U.S. 24 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A suit based on an alleged assignment of a patent right, involving the validity of the assignment under the patent laws, is within the jurisdiction of the district court as a suit arising under those laws. P. 261 U. S. 33 . 2. The mere right to exclude others from making, using, or vending a patented invention is not such an interest as may be assigned under the patent laws, and an attempted transfer thereof as against a particular person with right to enjoin his future infringements and collect damages therefor is void. Pp. 261 U. S. 35 , 261 U. S. 39 . 3. An assignment by a patent owner not conveying any in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-21-1923
Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States - 262 U.S. 215 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 215 (1923) Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States No. 341, and Nos. 342-364 Argued April 9, 10, 1923 Decided May 21, 1923 262 U.S. 215 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Where stockholders of a corporation, imposing no safeguard other than that the paper titles should be passed on by a reputable attorney, entrusted another stockholder, who was also vice-president and active manager of the company, with the business of Page 262 U. S. 216 procuring title to lands, to be patented under the Timber and Stone Act, for which he was to be paid a stated sum per acre, and where lands were so procured, by means of frauds on the act, of which the person thus acting as agent for all had knowledge, and by means of conveyances from the fraudulent entrymen to a naked trustee and from the truste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1923
Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co. - 261 U.S. 399 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U.S. 399 (1923) Toledo Scale Company v. Computing Scale Company Nos. 339 and 388 Argued March 16, 1923 Decided April 9, 1923 261 U.S. 399 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Under the Act of September 6, 1916, this Court has no jurisdiction to review on certiorari the merits of a final decree entered by the circuit court of appeals more than three months before the certiorari was applied for. P. 261 U. S. 417 . 2. Applications made to the circuit court of appeals after it had affirmed a decree upholding a patent and ordering an accounting, and renewed upon the appeal from the accounting, whereby the defendant sought to reopen the case upon the ground of newly discovered evidence of prior discovery, manufacture, sale, and use of the invention, were addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-12-1923
New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott - 263 U.S. 97 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott, 263 U.S. 97 (1923) New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott Nos. 64 and 86 Argued October 10, 11, 1923 Decided November 12, 1923 263 U.S. 97 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 1. The act of state officials in issuing a patent, under a state statute empowering them generally to convey such land as passed to the state under a federal swamp land act, is not the exercise of an "authority" under the state, within the meaning of that term in the statute governing writs of error from this Court (September 6, 1916, 2, 39 Stat. 726) if the specific lands in the patent, by reason of a prior Spanish grant and a treaty and laws of the United States, were not included in the swamp land grant. P. 263 U. S. 98 . 2. The claim that a decision of a state court erred in sustaining a Spanish grant over the objections that it was not valid originally and was not confirmed as required b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1923
Cramer v. United States - 261 U.S. 219 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219 (1923) Cramer v. United States No. 207 Argued January 15, 16, 1923 Decided February 19, 1923 261 U.S. 219 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Lands definitely occupied by individual Indians were excepted from the Central Pacific grant of July 25, 1866, c. 242, 14 Stat. 239, as lands "reserved . . . or otherwise disposed of." P. 261 U. S. 226 . 2. Such possessory rights, though not recognized by any statute or other formal governmental action of the time, were protected by the settled policy of the government towards the Indians. P. 261 U. S. 229 . 3. The Act of March 3, 1851, which required that claims of rights in lands in California derived from Spain and Mexico be presented for settlement within a specified time, and directed the Commission thereby created to inquire into the tenures of certain Indians, has no application to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-1923
Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Wendell - 261 U.S. 1 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Wendell, 261 U.S. 1 (1923) Gorham Manufacturing Company v. Wendell No.196 Argued on return to rule to show cause January 22, 1923 Decided February 19, 1923 261 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. In proceedings in the federal courts to enjoin state officials from collecting a tax alleged to violate the federal Constitution, the successors of such officials may be substituted as parties when such substitutions are permitted in the courts of the state. P. 261 U. S. 3 . 2. In view of the New York practice, and the consent of the parties substituted, held that the State Tax Commission might be substituted for the State Comptroller, whose functions have been transferred to it, and the State Attorney General for his predecessor in that office. P. 261 U. S. 5 . This case is here on an appeal from a decree of the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!