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.
Alexander E. KEITH, John Erickson, and Charles J. Erickson, Appellants, v. Edmund LAND, Appellee, 1924 — 2 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
IP
Alexander E. KEITH, John Erickson, and Charles J. Erickson, Appellants, v. Edmund LAND, Appellee
2 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1924
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
Alexander E. KEITH, John Erickson, and Charles J. Erickson, Appellants, v. Edmund LAND, Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted November 13, 1924.
Decided December 1, 1924.)
No. 1679.
C. C. Bulkley, W. A. Scott, and C. M. Candy, all of Chicago, Ill., and C. D. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
G. A. Yanoehowski, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority of invention to appellee, Land. The decision is based upon a motion by appellee for judgment, on the ground that appellants, having delayed four years after the grant of the patent in issue to Land before presenting the claims and seeking an interference, are gnilty of laches, and therefore estopped from claiming the invention. In the absence of any satisfactory reason for delay, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, on the authority of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; In re Fritts, 45 App. D. C. 211; Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U. S. 463, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792.