U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1920

In re Lees

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 6, 1920 · Robb

269 F. 679; 50 App. D.C. 163; 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1906

Counsel

C. B. Mueller, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant., T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Rothholz v. Kreger (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1950)
Application of Hayes (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1949)
In re Markel (D.C. Cir. 1927)
In re Claude (D.C. Cir. 1926)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to reissue appellant’s patent with broadened claims; the application having been filed about two years and five months after the granting of the patent.

In the affidavit accompanying the application for reissue, appellant states that he was unskilled in patent matters, relied upon his solicitor, and only recently discovered that his claims were not as broad as his invention. Since it is settled law that a patent will not be reissued after the lapse of two years, for the purpose of enlarging *680its claims, unless special circumstances are shown to excuse the delay (Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. Ed. 783; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 36 L. Ed. 658; In re Starkey, 21 App. D. C. 519; In re Schneider, 49 App. D. C. 204, 262 Fed. 718), it cannot be said that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the Patent Office in ruling that such special circumstances have not been shown here.

It follows that the decision must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.