SPEVACK v. STRAUSS et al.
No. 339.
Argued March 5, 1959.
Decided March 23, 1959.
Carleton U. Edwards II and Joseph Y. Houghton argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Bernard Margolius.
Leonard B. Sand argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Samuel D. Slade, Lionel Kestenbaum, Loren K. Olson and Roland A. Anderson.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Elisha Hanson, Arthur B. Hanson and Calvin H. Cobb, Jr. for the American Chemical Society, and by Carlton S. Dargusch and Carlton S. Dargusch, Jr. for Engineers Joint Council, Inc.
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1959, paid the patent fee for his patent, and has not requested a suspension or delay in the issuance thereof, or has withdrawn any such request theretofore made, to continue, the case and the restraining orders entered herein by The Chief Justice until the patent issues, and then to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.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.