LEGILLE V. DANN
544 F.2d 1 (1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition to the Commissioner
of Patents to reassign the filing dates of certain patent applications. Legille (P)
challenged summary judgment for Dann (D) in P's action involving the proper filing date
assigned under 35 U.S.C.S. 119 (1970) to their patent applications when received by the
United States Patent Office.
FACTS: Appellee's (P) attorney mailed a package containing four patent applications from
Hartford, Connecticut on March 1, 1973. The package was marked 'Airmail,' and bore
sufficient postage. Airmail between Hartford and Washington at that time was normally two
days. The applications were date-stamped March 8, 1973 by the Patent Office, and were
assigned a filing date on that basis. Consequently, three of the four patents failed. P
petitioned the Commissioner of Patents to reassign the filing date. The petition was denied
and P sued for a judgment directing the Commissioner to assign a filing date of not later
than March 6. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings and
affidavits. There was no direct evidence of the date on which the applications were actually
delivered to the Patent Office. P's suit was 'predicated upon the legal presumption that
postal employees discharge their duties in a proper manner and that properly addressed,
stamped and deposited mail is presumed to reach the addressee in due course and without
unusual delay, unless evidence to the contrary is proven.' D rested 'primarily upon a
presumption of procedural regularity based upon the normal manner, custom, practice and
habit established for the handling of incoming mail at the Patent Office and upon the
absence of evidence showing that the subject applications were not handled routinely in
accordance with those established procedures.' The court 'concluded that the presumption
relied upon by D is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that mails, properly
addressed, having fully prepaid postage, and deposited in the proper receptacles, will be
received by the addressee in the ordinary course of the mails.' 'This latter presumption,'
the court held, 'can only be rebutted by proof of specific facts and not by invoking another
presumption'; 'the negative evidence in this case detailing the manner, custom, practice and
habit of handling incoming mail by the Patent Office fails to overcome or rebut the strong
presumption that the applications were timely delivered in the regular course of the mails
to the Patent Office.' The court found in P's favor. D appeals.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment