Case Name: SUNDSTRAND v. GUBELMANN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1925-02-02
Citations: 4 F.2d 166
Docket Number: No. 1603
Parties: SUNDSTRAND v. GUBELMANN.
Judges: Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 166–168

Head Matter:
SUNDSTRAND v. GUBELMANN.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 12, 1924.
Decided February 2, 1925.)
No. 1603.
Patents <§swl 13(6) — Failure to s’how that delay in copying claims from patent was due to special circumstances may be raised for first time on appeal.
Junior party, appealing from decision awarding priority to senior party in interference proceeding, could rely on senior party’s failure to show that his failure to copy claims from junior party’s patent within two years from issuance thereof was due to special circumstances justifying delay, though question was not raised below, since showing of special circumstances justifying such delay is jurisdictional.
Smith, Acting Associate Justice, dissenting.
Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between Gustaf David Sundstrand and William S. Gubelmann. From a derision awarding priority to the latter, the former appeals.
Reversed.
L. B. Smith, of Chicago, 111., and G. E. Tew, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
' C. L. Sturtevant, of Washington, D. C., and A. A. Dicke, of New York City, for appellee.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

Opinion:
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a derision of the Acting Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding, reversing the decision of the Examiners in Chief and awarding priority to the appellee Gubelmann.
Sundstrand's original application was filed March 14, 1914, and a patent containing the claims of the issue was granted September 26, 1916. Gubelmann copied these claims on November 23, 1918, but made no showing that his failure to copy them within two years from the issuance of the patent was due to special circumstances justifying the delay. Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 139, 40 S. Ct. 234, 64 L. Ed. 491; Webster Co. v. Splitdorf Co., 264 U. S. 463, 471, 44 S. Ct. 342, 68 L. Ed. 792. In behalf of Gubelmann it is contended that appellant is estopped to insist upon that issue here, not having raised it below.' To this we cannot assent. Unless a showing is made of special circumstances justifying the delay in copying claims from an issued patent, the two-year limit applies, and there is no basis for the declaration of an interference, so that the award of a patent in such a situation would be an idle ceremony. It is apparent, therefore, that this jurisdictional question may be raised at any time.
Chapman v. Boede, 54 App. D. C. 209, 296 F. 956, is not in point, since it there appeared that the subject-matter of the copied claims was disclosed and claimed in a eopending application.
The decision is reversed.
Reversed.