Snelling v. Whitehead, 3380.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1921
• Docket Number: 3380.
• Citation: 269 F. 712
• Parties: SNELLING v. WHITEHEAD, Commissioner of Patents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

269 F. 712

SNELLING v. WHITEHEAD, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 3380.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

January 3, 1921

Submitted December 7, 1920.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

F. D McKenny, J. S. Flannery, and G. B. Craighill, all of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

R. F Whitehead and L. B. Mann, both of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant plaintiff below, filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the defendant, as Commissioner of Patents, praying a mandatory injunction to restrain defendant from proceeding further with an interference proceeding pending in the Patent Office, and to require defendant to strike from the files pertaining to said interference certain orders made therein, to discontinue further proceedings in connection with said interference, to reject without further hearing the application for a patent filed May 18, 1915, by one Walter F. Rittman, and for general relief.

Defendant made return to the rule and filed a motion to dismiss the bill for (a) want of equity; (b) want of jurisdiction to control the action of defendant Commissioner in matters involving the exercise of official judgment and discretion and (c) because plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy provided by law.

It appears that Rittman filed an application for a patent on May 1, 1915, and requested that the patent be granted thereon without requiring the payment of the fee as provided by the act of Congress of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 625 (Comp. St. Sec. 9441)), authorizing the issuance of a patent to any officer of the government, other than officers and employees of the Patent Office, without the payment of any fee, provided that the applicant state in his application:

'That the invention described therein, if patented, may be used by the government or any of its officers or employees in the prosecution of work for the government, or by any other person in the United States, without payment to him of any royalty thereon, which stipulation shall be included in the patent.'

Thereafter pursuant to certain correspondence set out in the bill, the fee was paid on March 15, 1915, and the application was filed as of that date. On May 18, 1915, Rittman filed a second application, paid the fees thereon, and made no reference therein to the act of 1883. The interference here sought to be...