35 U.S.C. § 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 305
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1928–2024 · leading case: Inre: Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Inre: Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The statute referred to by the United Carbon case was 35 U.S.C. § 33 (1932), the predecessor to today’s § 112(b).”
LeBlanc v. Spector, 378 F. Supp. 301 (D. Conn. 1973). “35 U.S.C. § 33 . Plaintiff’s second “cause of action” seeks recovery under the Lanham Act, 15 U.”
Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946). “4888, 35 U.S.C. § 33 , [1] as that statute was *3 interpreted by us in General Electric Co.”
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950). “" Since today's affirmance unquestioningly follows the findings of the trial court, this Court necessarily relies on what the specifications revealed.”
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1951). “958 , 35 U. S. C. § 33 ; United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.”
Cuno Eng'g Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1942). “*88 When replaced in the socket after use, it was held in open-circuit position until next needed. Petitioner makes several objections to the validity of the claims: that they do not comply with the standards for full, clear and concise description prescribed by 35 U.”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364 (1938). “§ 4888, 35 U. S. C. § 33 . íhat section requires that an applicant for a patent file a written description of his discovery or invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains .”
Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co., 49 F.2d 886 (6th Cir. 1931). “§ 4888 ( 35 U. S. C. § 33 [35 USCA § 33]), that the specification shall contain "a written description of the (invention) * * * in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most…”
Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 326 U.S. 249 (1945). “§ 4888 as amended, 35 U.S.C. § 33 . Revised Statutes, §§ 4895, 4898, 35 U.”
United States v. Harold Lawrence Blasius, 397 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1968). “On October 8, 1963 an information was filed against Blasius charging him with fifty-two counts of violations of Title 35 U.S.C. § 33 . 1 Fifty of these concerned advertisements in the above mentioned magazines and two were based upon solicitation letters sent to individuals.”
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948). “…46 Stat. 376 ; 53 Stat. 1212 , 35 U.S.C. § 31 . [2] R.S. § 4888, as amended, 38 Stat. 958 -959; 46 Stat. 376 , 35 U.S.C. § 33 .”
Lever Bros. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 139 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1943). “grounds: (1) These claims do not properly describe and define Bodman’s real discovery or invention, and (2) The terms of the claims, if the broad construction for these terms urged by counsel for Lever be upheld, are so uncertain and so ambiguous that these terms fail to furnish…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.