Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

254 F.2d 956

Docket No. 14272.

Anderson v. Watson

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 10, 1958.

Decided April 24, 1958.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1958-04-24

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1958-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1986

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

401958196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Charles F. Meroni, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Mr. William A. Smith, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, for appellee.

Before DANAHER, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellants filed suit against the Commissioner of Patents for a writ of mandamus to require the Commissioner to set down for hearing appellant Anderson's motions for judgment on the record and to render decisions thereon prior to the taking of testimony in certain pending interference proceedings, the motions being based on a claim of res judicata. The District Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.

¶2

In disposing of the motion to dismiss, the District Court (Holtzoff, J.) said:

¶3

"The question whether the motion for judgment should be passed upon when made during the pendency of the proceedings, or deferred until its final conclusion, is a matter of discretion with the Commissioner, which may not be reviewed by the courts. If final disposition of the proceedings results unfavorably to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will still have a right to review the question either by an appeal from the final decision of the Patent Office to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, or by an action de novo in this court."

¶4

We agree.

¶5

Affirmed.

/254/f2d/956 · .json · Public domain