In re Peter Droge, Nicole Christ, and Elke Lorbach(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 625-627
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
States Patent

Sperry Corp. v. United States

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-90
Author(s):  
Rose Cecile Chan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Circuit

Plaintiffs, Sperry Corp. and Sperry World Trade Inc. (Sperry), received an award from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). Upon payment of the award, the United States deducted 2 percent of the total amount pursuant to a directive license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury regarding recovered claims by U.S. nationals against Iran. When plaintiffs challenged the authority of the Treasury to make the deduction and the United States Claims Court announced a preliminary ruling that concurred with plaintiffs’ position, the Executive persuaded Congress to approve legislation authorizing specified percentages to be deducted by the United States from Tribunal awards to U.S. citizens. Responding to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the newly enacted statute, the United States Claims Court dismissed the suit and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (per Meyer, J.) reversed and held: that the deduction constitutes a taking without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In September 1988, the United States filed notice of appeal with the Supreme Court.

“Conjoint Gas and Mechanical Action as Applied to Flight”

1884 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 96-100
Author(s):  
Fred. W. Brearey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mechanical Action ◽  
United States Patent ◽  
Model Form ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
States Patent ◽  
Mechanical Arrangement ◽  
Made In

The remarks made in this paper are due to the action of the United States Patent Laws, as interpreted by one of the examiners, whose duty it was to adjudicate upon the practicability of an invention submitted to him, and whose decision was adverse to the granting of a patent. Protection was solicited for an improvement upon a previously patented mechanical aërial machine, the success of which had been proved by the inventor through the action of a model. The patent was refused on account of the alleged impracticability of the invention owing to the absence of gas as a supporting, or partly supporting, medium. Total misapprehension of the principles of flight is displayed whenever the balloon is recommended to take off part of the weight of any mechanical arrangement. However successfully the pure mechanical action may have proved itself in the conveyance of weights in the air whilst in the model form, the principle seems to be distrusted by some when proposed for extreme weight. But it fortunately happens that the resistance of the air to a body in motion, upon which we depend for success, bears a greatly increasing ratio to the extent of surface which that body assumes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document