Application of Szwarc
Decision Date | 27 September 1963 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6462,7000. |
Citation | 319 F.2d 277 |
Parties | Application of Michael Mojzesz SZWARC. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Cruzan Alexander, St. Paul, Minn. (James D. Stice, St. Paul, Minn., of counsel), for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges.
Appellant has appealed the rejection of 3 product and 8 process claims in his application1 for patent on certain polymers and processes for the production thereof. The rejection is based on appellant's British Patent which issued more than one year prior to the filing date of the appealed application. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The primary issue in this case arises under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and requires a determination of whether the present application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier U.S. application2 for patent filed by appellant, the filing date of which is early enough to avoid the statutory bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The rather complicated fact situation presented by the two consolidated appeals may be summarized as follows:
The issue presented by PA 6462 is whether under 35 U.S.C. § 120 the present application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of appellant's earlier U.S. application. It is the position of the board and solicitor that the decision in Petrocarbon Ltd. v. Watson, supra, is res judicata on this issue.
The first requirement of res judicata is that the second suit must involve the same parties or their privies. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898. In the case at bar, we obviously do not have the same parties as those before the court in Petrocarbon Ltd. v. Watson, supra. Since the record in PA 6462 was silent as to any relationship establishing privity between the parties, we remanded the same to the board for a factual determination of the relationship upon which the finding of res judicata could properly be based. In re Szwarc, 280 F.2d 436, 47 CCPA 1167. While there still remains some doubt as to whether the information presented by the Board of Appeals on Remand sufficiently establishes privity of the parties,3 Petrocarbon Ltd. and Szwarc, which warrants application of res judicata, we need not here pass on this matter in view of the concession made at oral argument by appellant's attorney that the M. W. Kellogg Company was the party in interest in Petrocarbon Ltd. v. Watson, supra, and is the party in interest here.
The second requirement of res judicata is identity of issues. If the second action between the same parties or privies is upon the same claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an absolute bar to relitigation not only of those matters actually determined in the prior suit but also any other matter which might have been acted upon in the prior suit. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195. This aspect of the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes called res judicata by bar or merger, differs from the second aspect of res judicata, estoppel by judgment. If the second action is upon a different claim or demand, an estoppel by judgment, more limited in its scope than res judicata by bar, operates as an estoppel only as to those matters upon which a determination or final verdict was actually rendered. Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra. Because the distinction between res judicata by bar and estoppel by judgment is often a source of confusion, the definitive statements of the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra, 333 U.S. at pages 597-598, 68 S.Ct. at page 719 are here quoted at some length:
Having in mind the above stated distinctions between res judicata by bar and estoppel by judgment or collateral estoppel and applying it to the present case, we find that the present record presents a different cause or demand than the cause or demand litigated in the Petrocarbon case.
As stated in the Memorandum Decision of the District Court in the Petrocarbon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Kirk
...... Application of David Neville KIRK and Vladimir Petrow. . Patent Appeal No. 7522. . United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. . ... and conclusion of the majority in Nelson, Wilke, Adams and Szwarc with the majority view in Brenner v. Manson. Therefore, to the extent ......
-
Brenner v. Manson
...... questions of importance to the administration of the patent laws: First, whether this Court has certiorari ... a chemist engaged in steroid research, filed an application to patent precisely the same process described by Ringold ...An appeal was taken to the then Court of Appeals for the District of ...540, 2 L.Ed.2d 531. But see Application of Szwarc, 319 F.2d 277, 281—286, 50 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1571, ......
-
Ziegler, In re, 91-1430
......appeal from the June 10, 1991 decision of the Patent and Trademark ... only claims remaining in United States patent application Serial No. 07/108,524, filed October 15, 1987 as a ... See In re Szwarc", 319 F.2d 277, 284, 138 USPQ 208, 214 (CCPA 1963). \xC2"......
-
Msm Investments Co., LLC v. Carolwood Corp., 98-20238 EAI.
...... (collectively "Carolwood") for infringing U.S.Patent No. 5,071,878 ("the '878 patent"). In response, Defendants ...5,071,878 issued on December 10, 1991, from an application filed on February 6, 1991. According to its title, the '878 ... See Motion, at 9:8-9. . On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed part of the district court's ..., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.1996) and In re Szwarc, 50 C.C.P.A. 1571, 319 F.2d 277 (1963), are ......
-
In re Dane K. Fisher: an exercise in utility.
...to the process claims, whatever remained of the so-called "rule of Bremner" subsequent to our decision in Wilkie. See also In re Szwarc, 319 F.2d 277, 50 CCPA 1571. (136) However, as discussed above, the court in Wilkie did not overrule Bremner. Rather, Judge Smith in Wilkie merely declined......