OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States v. Bland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 636
United States v. Bland
Argued: April 27, 1931. --- Decided: May 25, 1931
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Emily Marx, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Cerullo v. Follette/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1232
United States Cerullo v. Follette
Applicant requests an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Since, in the posture of this case, his time for filing will not expire until December 31, 1969, I perceive no necessity for an extension at this stage. No reason appears why the time remaining will not be sufficient for the preparation and filing of a petition for certiorari.
Applicant also requests a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and continuance of bail pending determination of his petition for certiorari. Pursuant to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the mandate has already issued. Treating the papers as an application for bail pending action on the petition, I note that there is no sign that applicant has made a request to the Court of Appeals, as he may under Fed.Rule App.Proc. 23(b). In my view that court should have an opportunity to consider applicant's request before it is entertained by a Justice of this Court. Cf. U.S.Supp.Ct.Rule 27.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Cerullo v. Follette

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
396 U.S. 1232
United States Cerullo v. Follette
Application for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari; Motion for Stay; and Application for Bail Pending Petition for Certiorari.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, Circuit Justice.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Chapman v. Federal Power Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Clark

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 153
United States Chapman v. Federal Power Commission
Argued: Oct. 22, 1952. --- Decided: March 16, 1953
Mr. Gregory Hankin, Washington, D.C., for Oscar L. Chapman.
Mr. Robert Whitehead, Lovingston, Va., for Virginia REA Ass'n.
Mr. Bradford Ross, Washington, D.C., for respondent Federal Power Comm.
Mr. T. Justin Moore, Richmond, Va., for respondent Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Messrs. Charles F. Rouse, Raleigh, N.C., David W. Robinson, J., Washington, D.C., for respondent Carolina Power & Light Co.
Mr. Herbert B. Cohn, New York City, for respondent Appalachian Electric Power Co.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Chicago Great Western Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
294 U.S. 50
United States Chicago Great Western Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 13, 1934. --- Decided: Jan 7, 1935
Mr. Frank H. Towner, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Cartridge Co v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 511
UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: Jan. 15, 1932. --- Decided: Feb 15, 1932
[Syllabus from pages 511-513 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Harry Le Baron Sampson, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 29/Section 296

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 296. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents
(a) In General.—Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for infringement of a patent under section 271, or for any other violation under this title.
(b) Remedies.—In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any private entity. Such remedies include damages, interest, costs, and treble damages under section 284, attorney fees under section 285, and the additional remedy for infringement of design patents under section 289.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 102-560, Sec. 2(a)(2), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4230.)

## Effective Date

Section effective with respect to violations that occur on or after Oct. 28, 1992, see section 4 of Pub. L. 102-560, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 2541 of Title 7, Agriculture.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 30

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Chapter 30. Prior Art Citations to Office and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents
* Section 301. Citation of prior art
* Section 302. Request for reexamination
* Section 303. Determination of issue by Director
* Section 304. Reexamination order by Director
* Section 305. Conduct of reexamination proceedings
* Section 306. Appeal
* Section 307. Certificate of patentability, unpatentability, and claim cancellation

## Amendments
### 2002

Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906, made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-582. See 1999 Amendment note below.

### 1999

Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-582, as amended by Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in item 304.
Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Secs. 4602, 4732(a)(9)(B)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-567, 1501A- 582, inserted "EX PARTE" before "REEXAMINATION" in chapter heading and substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in item 303.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 3/Section 32

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 32. Suspension or exclusion from practice
The Director may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who does not comply with the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D) of this title, or who shall, by word, circular, letter, or advertising, with intent to defraud in any manner, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or other person having immediate or prospective business before the Office. The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion shall be duly recorded. The Director shall have the discretion to designate any attorney who is an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct the hearing required by this section. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, under such conditions and upon such proceedings as it by its rules determines, may review the action of the Director upon the petition of the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded.

## Source

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 93-596, Sec. 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Secs. 4715(c), 4719, 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580 to 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)

## Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., Sec. 11 (R.S. 487, amended Feb. 18, 1922, ch. 58, Sec. 3, 42 Stat. 390).
See note under section 31.

## Amendments
### 2002

Pub. L. 107-273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.

### 1999

Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107-273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in first and last sentences.
Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4719], inserted before last sentence “The Director shall have the discretion to designate any attorney who is an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct the hearing required by this section.”
Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4715(c)], substituted “2(b)(2)(D)” for “31”.

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106-113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4731] of Pub. L. 106-113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

### 1975

Pub. L. 93-596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.

#### Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93-596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93-596, set out as a note under section 1111 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 29/Section 295

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 295. Presumption: Product made by patented process
In actions alleging infringement of a process patent based on the importation, sale, offer for sale, or use of a product which is made from a process patented in the United States, if the court finds—
    (1) that a substantial likelihood exists that the product was made by the patented process, and
    (2) that the plaintiff has made a reasonable effort to determine the process actually used in the production of the product and was unable to so determine,
the product shall be presumed to have been so made, and the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on the party asserting that it was not so made.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 100-418, title IX, Sec. 9005(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1566; amended Pub. L. 103-465, title V, Sec. 533(b)(7), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4990.)

## Amendments
### 1994

Pub. L. 103-465 substituted “sale, offer for sale, or use” for “sale, or use” in introductory provisions.

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103-465 effective on date that is one year after date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States [Jan. 1, 1995], with provisions relating to earliest filed patent application, see section 534(a), (b)(3) of Pub. L. 103-465, set out as a note under section 154 of this title.

## Effective Date

Section effective 6 months after Aug. 23, 1988, and, subject to enumerated exceptions, applicable only with respect to products made or imported after such effective date, see section 9006 of Pub. L. 100-418, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 271 of this title.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 3/Section 33

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 33. Unauthorized representation as practitioner
Whoever, not being recognized to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, holds himself out or permits himself to be held out as so recognized, or as being qualified to prepare or prosecute applications for patent, shall be fined not more than $1,000 for each offense.

## Source

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 796; Pub. L. 93-596, Sec. 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949.)

## Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., Sec. 11a (May 9, 1938, ch. 188, 52 Stat. 342).
This is a criminal statute. The language has been considerably simplified and the upper limit of the penalty is increased.

## Amendments
### 1975

Pub. L. 93-596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.

#### Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93-596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93-596, set out as a under section 1111 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 30/Section 301

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 301. Citation of prior art
Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 96-517, Sec. 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3015.)

## Effective Date

Chapter effective July 1, 1981, and applicable to patents in force as of July 1, 1981, or issued thereafter, see section 8(b) of Pub. L. 96-517, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 41 of this title.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 3

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Chapter 3. Practice Before Patent and Trademark Office
* Section 31. (Repealed.)
* Section 32. Suspension or exclusion from practice
* Section 33. Unauthorized representation as practitioner

## Amendments
### 1999

Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4715(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580, struck out item 31 “Regulations for agents and attorneys”.

### 1975

Pub. L. 93-596, Sec. 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949, substituted “PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE” for “PATENT OFFICE” in chapter heading.

## Repeal of 35 USC Sec. 31

[Sec. 31. Repealed. Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4715(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-580]
Section, acts July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 93-596, Sec. 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949, authorized theCommissioner to prescribe regulations for agents and attorneys.

### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4731] of Pub. L. 106-113, set out as an Effective Date of 1999 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
# United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 30/Section 302

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Section 302. Request for reexamination
Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Director pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of this title. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Director promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent.

## Source

(Added Pub. L. 96-517, Sec. 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3015; amended Pub. L. 106-113, div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(8), (10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107-273, div. C, title III, Sec. 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)

## Amendments
### 2002

Pub. L. 107-273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.

### 1999

Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107-273, substituted “Director promptly” for “Commissioner promptly”.
Pub. L. 106-113, Sec. 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4732(a)(8)], substituted “Director pursuant” for “Commissioner of Patents pursuant”.

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106-113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, Sec. 4731] of Pub. L. 106-113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
# United States v. Burton Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
273 U.S. 337
United States v. Burton Coal Company
Argued: Jan. 10, 1927. --- Decided: Feb 21, 1927
The Attorney General and Mr. Herman J. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Maclay Hoyne, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Burnison

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 87
United States v. Burnison
Argued: Dec. 13, 1949. --- Decided: March 13, 1950
Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. J. Harold Decker, Los Angeles, Cal., for Gayetty and others.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Burroughs

United States Supreme Court
289 U.S. 159
United States v. Burroughs
Argued: March 14, 15, 1933. --- Decided: April 10, 1933
The Attorney General and Mr.Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Messrs. Robert H. McNeill and Levi H. David, both of Washington, D.C., for Burroughs and Cannon.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. United States (214 U.S. 507)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 507
United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. United States (214 U.S. 507)
[Syllabus from page 507 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of the Case from pages 508-510 intentionally omitted.]
Messrs. Milton S. Gunn and J. Kemp Bartlett for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Russell for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. United States (214 U.S. 507)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
214 U.S. 507
United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. United States (214 U.S. 507)

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Code/Title 47/Chapter 5/Subchapter III

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Title 47—Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs Chapter 5—Wire or Radio Communication Subchapter III—Special Provisions Relating to Radio
* Part I—General Provisions
* Part II—Radio Equipment and Radio Operators On Board Ship
* Part III—Radio Installations on Vessels Carrying Passengers for Hire
* Part IV—Assistance for Planning and Construction of Public Telecommunications Facilities; Telecommunications Demonstrations; Corporation for Public Broadcasting; General Provisions
# United States Code/Title 47/Chapter 5/Subchapter III/Part IV

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
Title 47—Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs Chapter 5—Wire or Radio Communication Subchapter III—Special Provisions Relating to Radio Part IV—Assistance for Planning and Construction of Public Telecommunications Facilities; Telecommunications Demonstrations; Corporation for Public Broadcasting; General Provisions
* Subpart A—Assistance for Planning and Construction of Public Telecommunications Facilities
* Subpart B—National Endowment for Children’s Educational Television
* Subpart C—Telecommunications Demonstrations
* Subpart D—Corporation for Public Broadcasting
* Subpart E—General Provisions
# United States Code/Title 47/Chapter 5

From the U.S. House of Representatives.
* Subchapter I—General Provisions
* Subchapter II—Common Carriers
* Subchapter III—Special Provisions Relating to Radio
* Subchapter IV—Procedural and Administrative Provisions
* Subchapter V—Penal Provisions; Forfeitures
* Subchapter V-A—Cable Communications
* Subchapter VI—Miscellaneous Provisions