In re Hien
Decision Date | 12 April 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 16,16 |
Citation | 41 L.Ed. 1066,17 S.Ct. 624,166 U.S. 432 |
Parties | In re HIEN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. H. Singleton, for petitioner.
W. A. Megrath, for respondents.
The commissioner of patents, in an interference proceeding between Philip Hien and one William A. Pungs, awarded priority of the invention in controversy to Pungs, June 9, 1894. Hien gave notice to the commissioner, March 12, 1896, of an appeal from his decision, under section 4912 of the Revised Statutes, to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, and filed his petition of appeal in that court June 2, 1896, which was dismissed on the 3d day of the following December, because the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by the rules of the court. 24 Wash. Law Rep. 827. December 12, 1896, Hien moved that his appeal be reinstated on the ground that the court of appeals had no authority to make the rules in question, which was denied. 25 Wash. Law Rep. 8. Hien then applied to this court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus. Leave was granted, the petition filed, and a rule to show cause entered, to which return was duly made.
Section 780 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, approved June 22, 1874, reads:
'Sec. 780. The supreme court, sitting in banc, shall have jurisdiction of and shall hear and determine all appeals from the decisions of the commissioner of patents, in accordance with the provisions of sections forty-nine hundred and eleven to section forty-nine hundred and fifteen, inclusive, of chapter one, title LX, of the Revised Statutes, 'Patents, Trade-Marks, and Copy-Rights."
The sections of the Revised Statutes thus referred to are as follows:
Sections 6 and 9 of the act to establish the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, approved February 9, 1893 (26 Stat. 434, c. 74), provided:
Sec. 6. That the said court of appeals shall establish a term of the court during each and every month in each year excepting the months of July and August, and it shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the transaction of the business to be brought before it, and for the time and method of the entry of appeals and for giving notice of appeals thereto from the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper in the premises.'
By the act of July 30, 1894 (28 Stat. 160, c. 172), section 6 was amended so as to read as follows:
The court of appeals, June 5, 1893, promul gated a set of rules, among which were these:
Rule XIX—6. The appeals from the commissioner of patents shall be subject to all the rules of this court provided for other cases therein, except where such rules, from the nature of the case, or by reason of special provisions inconsistent therewith, are not applicable.'
The commissioner of patents issued an order May 16, 1894, that 'all examiners are hereby directed to withold from issue the application of the prevailing party in interference cases for thirty days from the date of final issue, in order that an appeal may be taken to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, if desired.' This order was published in the Official Gazette of June 5, 1894 (67 Off. Gaz. 1195).
The court of appeals promulgated a new set of rules September 29, 1894, or which rule 20 related to appeals from the commissioner of patents; the second subdivision reading thus:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kolkman v. People
... ... District of Columbia the power to 'make such rules and ... regulations as may be necessary and proper for the ... transaction of the business to be brought before it.' ... (Act Feb. 9, 1893, c. 74, § 6, 27 Stat. 435). It the case of ... In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432, 436, 17 S.Ct. 624, 626, 41 L.Ed ... 1066, the Supreme Court said that, 'The general rule ... undoubtedly is that courts of justice possess the inherent ... power to make and frame reasonable rules not conflicting with ... express statute'; but held that the statute ... ...
-
Hyatt v. Doll
...§ 4915, "a formal trial is afforded on proof which may include evidence not presented in the Patent Office."); In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432, 439, 17 S.Ct. 624, 41 L.Ed. 1066 (1897) ("The bill in equity provided for by section 4915 is wholly different from the proceeding by appeal from the decis......
-
HYATT v. KAPPOS
...upon the merits of his application to a patent”). The Court has repeatedly confirmed this understanding. See In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432, 439, 17 S.Ct. 624, 41 L.Ed. 1066 (1897) (“The bill in equity provided for by section 4915 is wholly different from the proceeding by appeal from the decisio......
-
Kappos v. Hyatt
...4915 (R.S. 4915) proceeding as "a suit according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure"); In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432, 438, 17 S.Ct. 624, 41 L.Ed. 1066 (1897) (same); In re Squire, 22 F.Cas. 1015, 1016 (No. 13,269) (C.C.E.D.Mo.1877) (in an R.S. 4915 proceeding, the parties we......