Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/359/115/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/359/115/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Spevack v. Strauss, 359 U.S. 115 (1959)
Spevack v. Strauss
No. 339
Argued March 5, 1959
Decided March 23, 1959
359 U.S. 115
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
It appearing upon oral argument that, in the normal course, the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee, the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions.
Reported below: 103 U.S.App.D.C. 204, 257 F.2d 208.
PER CURIAM.
Upon oral argument, it appeared that, in the normal course, the fee for petitioner's United States patent must be paid by May 25, 1959, and that the patent will issue shortly after payment of the fee. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the District Court and that court is instructed: (1) If petitioner has, by May 25, 1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue the
case and the restraining orders entered herein by THE CHIEF JUSTICE until the patent issues, and then to dismiss the complaint as moot; (2) otherwise, on May 25, 1959, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, apart from the merits of the controversy, the grant of the extraordinary equitable relief of an injunction at that stage of the proceedings would not be warranted. Upon the fulfillment of either of these conditions, the proceedings heretofore had in the two lower courts are vacated.
