Blasius v. United States
Blasius v. United States
393 U.S. 950; 89 S. Ct. 375; 159 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 798; 21 L. Ed. 2d 361; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 3086
(United States Reports)
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dorothy C. Parker v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (D.C. Cir. 1977)
- People v. Meyerowitz (Ill. 1975)
- Richard Gordon Bannister v. United States (3d Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Isaac Tiktin (6th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Eugene J. Hanon, United States of America v. Gloria Meyer, United States of America v. John L. Boveri (8th Cir. 1970)
- Marbley v. Bane (2d Cir. 1995)
- Marbley v. Bane (2d Cir. 1995)
- In re Amalgamated Development Co., Inc. (D.C. 1977)
- Henry J. Enders, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. American Patent Search Company (9th Cir. 1976)
- Andrew Pasha v. United States (7th Cir. 1973)
- Fred L. Collins v. James E. Daly, District Director of Internal Revenue (7th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. 1964 Ford Thunderbird, Motor and Serial Number 4y85z156657. Appeal of Webster Bivens (3d Cir. 1971)
- Thomas J. Kerrigan v. Gerald A. Boucher (2d Cir. 1971)
- Albert L. Mersel and Michael Mersel T/a Mike's News & Sundries v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. William Scott, Jr., United States of America v. Walter Dombkowski, United States of America v. Robert Dombkowski (6th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Decker (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1970)
- United States v. Philip R. Filing (6th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. John Cosmo Prevatt and John H. Bennett, Jr. (5th Cir. 1969)
- National Association of Government Employees v. Robert M. White (D.C. Cir. 1969)
- People v. Charlie Lee Woods (Mich. 1969)
- United States v. Three Thousand Seven Hundred One Dollars & Five Cents in United States Coin & Currency (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1969)
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
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:
“Does an individual violate Section 33 of Title 35, United States Code, by representing that he is qualified to prepare applications for patent, when the individual is not registered with the Patent Office?
“(a) Did the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err in its opinion that the provisions of Section 33 of Title 35, United States Code, are clear, and not ambiguous as determined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Hull v. United States, 390 P. 2d 462 (D. C. Cir. 1968), thus creating a conflict within the Circuits?
“(b) Does the word ‘qualified’ as used in Section 33 of Title 35, United States Code, mean skill or ‘know-how’ in performing the service or does it mean legal and actual authority from the Patent Office to perform a particular function?”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.