Emile RIMAILHO, Appellant, v. Pliny E. HOLT, Appellee

8 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1925

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

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

Emile RIMAILHO, Appellant, v. Pliny E. HOLT, Appellee. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted November 9, 1925. Decided December 7, 1925.) Patent Appeal No. 1721. E. G. Curtis and N. N. Sanders, both of New York City, and A. D. Adams, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., for appellee. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the party Holt. The invention covers means for supporting heavy artillery, and involves a construction in which the gun-supporting frame has its ends carried by independently driven tractors of the caterpillar type. ]n the Patent Office the issue largely turned upon the question of Holt’s diligence; Rimailho not having taken any testimony. The evidence has been fully and carefully reviewed by the tribunals of the Office, and we agree with the conclusion reached that Holt, m view of the circumstances surrounding him, his conduct after conception, and the character of the invention, was reasonably diligent. The decision therefore is affirmed. Affirmed.