Opinion

Seng v. Dann

542 F.2d 568
191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 432
1976 CCPA LEXIS 130

Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Filed: Oct 7, 1976
Status: Published
Author: Miller
On the bench: Clarke, Interest, Issidorides, Miller, Party, Respondents, Stowell, Washington
Cited by: 2 cases
Authority: More cited than 58.7%

The opinion

ORDER

MILLER, Judge.

Having considered Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss said petition, and Petitioners’ Reply; also, Memorandum by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and Petitioners’ Reply thereto—

The court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the petition. Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974).

The court concludes that petitioners have not shown that the action of the board complained of constituted an abuse of discretion. Nor has it been shown that, in the event of an award of priority adverse to petitioners, petitioners will not have an adequate appellate remedy. Moreover, the fact that petitioners may be put to further time and expense is not a sufficient basis for granting the petition. Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition be denied. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is moot.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.