Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GIBBS et al. v. WOHL, 1932 — 55 F.2d 494 · caselaw · US
IP
GIBBS et al. v. WOHL
55 F.2d 494·United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GIBBS et al. v. WOHL.
Patent Appeal No. 3145.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Feb. 9, 1932.
Irvin G. Menikheim, of. Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATPIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
It appears from the record in the foregoing ease that the patent, No. 1,285,117, issued November 19,1918, to Harry D. Gibbs and Courtney Conover, employees of the government of the United States, in the Department of Agriculture, has been by them assigned to the government of the United States of America and the people thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 625 [35 USCA § 45]), and that the said government of the United States is the real party in interest in the interference proceedings appealed to this court, in the names of said Gibbs and Conover, from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office.
The court, therefore, orders and directs that no fees shall be required to be paid to the clerk of this court, as provided by Rule V of the court, for filing and docketing said appeal, or for supervising the printing of the record therein. It is the opinion of the court that the proviso of paragraph 4 of the "schedule” of said Rule V should apply, and it is directed that the same shall hereafter apply, to appeals by the government in patent eases as well as in customs eases.