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.

for the purpose of securing favorable action by the Patent Office with respect to the claims in the Peiler application.

"[5] The Office disbarred them "for gross misconduct,"[6] and they appealed the action by suing the Patent Commissioner in the district court.

The district court affirmed the order of the Patent Office, holding: Having determined, after due notice, a fair hearing, and upon substantial evidence, that the petitioners were guilty of gross misconduct, it was in the discretion of the Commissioner to determine the proper disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable statute.

Where no error of law is involved, we have no authority to substitute our opinions for those of the Patent Office and the District Court.

"[14] Justice Jackson accused the Patent Office of "a capricious self-righteousness" that "denied the essentials of a fair hearing.

The worst that can be said of Dorsey is that he took advantage of this loose practice to use a trade journal article as evidence, without disclosing that it was ghost-written for the ostensible author.