Cook v. Dann

Robert D. COOK, Junior Party in Interference No. 98,254 v. C. Marshall DANN, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Leslie H. Gaston, Edward J. Hayes, Senior Party in Interference No. 98,254

Cook v. Dann, 522 F.2d 1276 (C.C.P.A. 1975)

Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided: October 3, 1975
Docket: No. Special Patent No. 187
Citations: 522 F.2d 1276188 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1751975 CCPA LEXIS 128

Cited by 7

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ORDER PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Cook seeks a writ of mandamus, directing vacation of a decision of the Board of Patent Interferences which limited the scope of permissible discovery, and a writ of prohibition against continuation of interference No. 98,254. Respondents are the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, the Board of Patent Interferences, and Hayes, Cook’s interference adversary. Hayes has filed a motion to dismiss the petition.

The Patent Trademark Office (PTO) respondents’ challenge to our jurisdiction under the All Writs Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a)) must be rejected. Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974); Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974); Loshbough v. Allen, 404 F.2d 1400 , 56 CCPA 913 (1969).

Cook admits that the board’s decision was interlocutory and discretionary but alleges an abuse of discretion limiting discovery to events “subsequent to the spring months of 1968.” Hayes, conceding that the board so intended, has agreed to discovery from the “beginning of the spring months.” We have considered the matter in that light.

No abuse or arbitrary exercise of discretion has been demonstrated. Rule 287(c) (37 CFR 1.287(c)) does not bestow the right to discovery of unlimited scope. The board’s action was predicated on the dates in Cook’s preliminary statement and the differences between the “AND” logic modules of the counts and the prior *1277 art “OR” modules concerning which petitioner seeks discovery.

Good order and discipline, as well as fairness to the parties, compel recognition of wide discretion in PTO management of its affairs. Absent a clear showing of abuse, this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion. Schenley Industries, Inc. v. E. Martinoni Co., 408 F.2d 1049 , 56 CCPA 1038 (1969).

Accordingly, the petition is denied and the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Federal Specialty Courts7

Relies on it most ⓘ

Goodbar v. Banner599 F.2d 431 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
Wiesner v. Weigert666 F.2d 582 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
Godtfredsen v. Banner598 F.2d 589 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
Reddy v. Dann529 F.2d 1347 (C.C.P.A. 1976)
Dueltgen v. Parker579 F.2d 638 (C.C.P.A. 1978)
McNally v. Mossinghoff673 F.2d 1253 (C.C.P.A. 1982)

Most recent

McNally v. Mossinghoff673 F.2d 1253 (C.C.P.A. 1982)
Wiesner v. Weigert666 F.2d 582 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
Goodbar v. Banner599 F.2d 431 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
Godtfredsen v. Banner598 F.2d 589 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
Dueltgen v. Parker579 F.2d 638 (C.C.P.A. 1978)
Reddy v. Dann529 F.2d 1347 (C.C.P.A. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (C.C.P.A. 1974)	14
	Loshbough v. Allen, 404 F.2d 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1969)	9
	Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (C.C.P.A. 1974)	8
	Schenley Indus. v. E, 408 F.2d 1049 (C.C.P.A. 1969)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list