Cupples v. Watson, Commissioner of Patents
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Richard M. Franchi v. Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce & Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks (Fed. Cir. 1992)
- Worley v. United States Patent & Trademark Office (District Court, District of Columbia 2000)
- Leeds v. Mosbacher (District Court, District of Columbia 1990)
- Klein v. Peterson (District Court, District of Columbia 1988)
- Slater v. Quigg (District Court, District of Columbia 1986)
- Application of Peterson (Alaska 1972)
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
Appellant seeks to require appellee, the Commissioner of Patents, to admit him to practice before the Patent Office despite his failure to pass an examination. The trial judge thought it his duty, among other things, to read the examination questions and appellant’s answers to them and to review the grading of these answers to the extent of determining that “by reasonable tests, the officials of the Patent Office acted fairly and without discrimination in the grading of the plaintiff’s examination, pursuant to a uniform standard, that the plaintiff failed to pass the required examination,” etc. Cupples v. Marzall, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 579, 583. We need not decide whether in our opinion this kind of review of the examination was necessary. In all other respects we agree with the'opinion of the District Court
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.