Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Boyle v. US Patent & Trade, 01-1759 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1759 Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1759 JOHN C. BOYLE, “Jack”, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; AS- SISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR; MARTHA SANTAMARTINO, Examining Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (MC-01-27) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 26, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1759 JOHN C. BOYLE, “Jack”, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; AS- SISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS; OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR; MARTHA SANTAMARTINO, Examining Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (MC-01-27) Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John C. Boyle, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John C. Boyle appeals from the district court’s order dismiss- ing his action seeking judicial review of the decision by the Solicitor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to deny his request to depose a trademark examiner as a third-party witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Boyle v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, No. MC-01-27 (E.D. Va., filed May 14, 2001; entered May 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer