Case Name: HUNTINGTON v. BROWN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-01-03
Citations: 277 F. 624
Docket Number: No. 1426
Parties: HUNTINGTON v. BROWN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 277
Pages: 624–624

Head Matter:
HUNTINGTON v. BROWN.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 14, 1921.
Decided January 3, 1922.)
No. 1426.
•Patents <@=>91 (3)—Priority properly awarded to senior party, when junior party fails to overcome burden.
In an interference proceeding, turning on the question of originality, priority was properly awarded to the senior party, where the junior party failed to overcome the burden imposed on him.
Appeal from a Decision of the Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between Alfred R. Huntington and Edmund N. Brown. Erom a decision in favor of Brpwn, Huntington appeals.
Affirmed.
Melville Church, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Eugene C. Brown, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
<§E£>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Opinion:
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This interference relates to an electric reflector heater comprised of a parabolic reflector at the focal point of which and transverse to the axis thereof is mounted an electrie heating element.
The invention was made by one of the parties in 1915. Huntington was in the employ of the Majestic Electric Development Company, of which Brown was a director. The' case turns solely upon the question of originality. Upon the issue of fact thus involved, priority was awarded to Brown by the Board of Examiners in Chief and by the Commissioner. A careful review of their opinions and of the evidence convinces us that their conclusion was correct. Huntington has failed to overcome the burden imposed upon him as junior party.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.
Affirmed.