Kingsland v. Dorsey

Kingsland v. Dorsey
Kingsland v. Dorsey
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 18–19, 1949; Decided November 21, 1949
Full case name	Kingsland v. Dorsey
Citations	338 U.S. 318 (more) 70 S. Ct. 123; 94 L. Ed. 2d 123; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2977; 83 U.S.P.Q. 330
Case history
Prior	Hatch v. Ooms, 69 F. Supp. 788 (D.D.C. 1947); reversed, 173 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1949)
Court membership
	Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed; Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas; Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton; Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
	Per curiam
Dissent	Jackson, joined by Frankfurter
	Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Kingsland v. Dorsey, 338 U.S. 318 (1949), like Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., is another patent fraud decision of the United States Supreme Court growing out of the antitrust cartel case described in Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States. Kingsland is widely quoted for its statement that the prosecution of patent applications in the Patent Office "requires the highest degree of candor and good faith" because the Patent Office "must rely upon [patent attorneys'] integrity and deal with them in a spirit of trust and confidence.

Kingsland v. Dorsey
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 18–19, 1949 Decided November 21, 1949
Full case name	Kingsland v. Dorsey
Citations	338 U.S. 318 (more) 70 S. Ct. 123; 94 L. Ed. 2d 123; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2977; 83 U.S.P.Q. 330
Case history
Prior	Hatch v. Ooms, 69 F. Supp. 788 (D.D.C. 1947); reversed, 173 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1949)
Court membership
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
Per curiam
Dissent	Jackson, joined by Frankfurter
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.