U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 20, 1958 · Fahy, Danaher, Bastian

261 F.2d 752; 104 U.S. App. D.C. 286 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. Joseph P. Grady and John B. Grady, appellants pro se, submitted on the brief for appellants., Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

Diva Laboratorium Aktienge-Sellschaft v. DeLoney & Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1965)
Commissariat a L'EnErgiE Atomique v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1960)
Floyd E. Washington v. Dale C. Cameron, Superintendent, St. Elizabeth's Hospital (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Association for Preservation of Freedom of Choice, Inc. v. Wadmond (District Court, S.D. New York 1963)
May v. Usry (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1962)
Bobert W. Hicks v. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General of the United States (Individually and as Postmaster General of the United States) (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Haine v. Googe (District Court, S.D. New York 1960)
MacArthur Liquors, Inc. v. Palisades Citizens Ass'n (D.C. Cir. 1959)

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

PER CURIAM.

More than sixty days after the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office rejecting the claims of their application for patent appellants filed a complaint in the District Court purporting to be pursuant to “Revised Statutes, Section 4915.” We construe this as intended to be under the successor statute, 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952). The Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the motion and at the same time denied a motion of appellants for leave to amend their complaint. This appeal followed.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint and we think the motion to dismiss was properly granted since appellants’ complaint was not timely filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952) and Rule 304 of the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases, 35 U.S.C. Appendix, 22 Fed.Reg. 5770 (1957), amending 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 (1952).

Affirmed.

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