From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simonsen v. United States

United States District Court, D. Delaware
Jan 31, 1938
22 F. Supp. 239 (D. Del. 1938)

Summary

In John B. Pierce Foundation v. Penberthy Injector Company, D.C., 22 F. Supp. 239, this court held that the inventor-assignor was not an indispensable party under Section 4915.

Summary of this case from United States v. Washington Institute of Technology

Opinion

No. 1231.

January 31, 1938.

In Equity. Suit by the John B. Pierce Foundation and another against Penberthy Injector Company, to determine right to patent for an invention. On defendant's motion to dismiss bill for absence of parties defendant.

Motion denied.

Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., and Henry J. Lucke, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

William G. Mahaffy and Herbert L. Cohen, both of Wilmington, Del., Benjamin H. Sherman (of Charles W. Hills), of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.


Motion by defendant to dismiss bill of complaint filed under section 4915, R.S., as amended, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, by a defeated applicant in an interference proceeding in the Patent Office and his assignee against the assignee of the successful applicant in the interference proceeding.

The grounds of the motion are the absence of two parties defendant: (1) Howard D. Yoder, the successful applicant, and (2) the Commissioner of Patents. At the hearing the second ground was abandoned.

The bill alleges that the plaintiff, William C. Groeniger, filed an application for patent which was declared by the Patent Office to interfere with an application of Howard D. Yoder. The bill further alleges that after due proceedings had in the Patent Office priority of invention was awarded to Yoder. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Patent Office Yoder assigned his entire right, title, and interest to Penberthy Injector Company, the sole defendant.

The court derives its power to hear and determine this case under section 4915, R.S., as amended, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. That section provides: "Whenever a patent on application is refused by the Commissioner of Patents, the applicant * * * may have remedy by bill in equity; * * * and the court * * * on notice to adverse parties * * * may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention."

The adverse party is the defendant, Penberthy Injector Company, the sole and exclusive assignee of Yoder. This defendant is the only adverse party, and has received the statutory notice by the bringing of this suit. Defendant is the sole indispensable party. Armstrong v. Langmuir, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 369; Standard Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C., 19 F. Supp. 833; Nakken Patents Corporation v. Westinghouse Elec. Mfg. Co., D.C., 21 F. Supp. 336.

The motion to dismiss must be denied.

For like reason, plaintiffs' motion to strike from the answer paragraphs XVII, XVIII, and XIX must be granted.


Summaries of

Simonsen v. United States

United States District Court, D. Delaware
Jan 31, 1938
22 F. Supp. 239 (D. Del. 1938)

In John B. Pierce Foundation v. Penberthy Injector Company, D.C., 22 F. Supp. 239, this court held that the inventor-assignor was not an indispensable party under Section 4915.

Summary of this case from United States v. Washington Institute of Technology
Case details for

Simonsen v. United States

Case Details

Full title:JOHN B. PIERCE FOUNDATION et al. v. PENBERTHY INJECTOR CO

Court:United States District Court, D. Delaware

Date published: Jan 31, 1938

Citations

22 F. Supp. 239 (D. Del. 1938)

Citing Cases

United Transit Company v. United States

In this connection the Court fully agrees with the reasoning of District Judge Bootle in the case of United…

United States v. Washington Institute of Technology

As such, he is an adverse party within the meaning of Section 4915 and an indispensable party in this suit.…