Invention Submission Inc. vs. Rogan

InventionSubmission Inc. vs. Rogan

June27, 2014.

InventionSubmission Inc. vs. Rogan

Theappeals court directed the district courts to dismiss the casebecause the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) had not violated anylaw but acted within its authority. In the same line, the agencycampaign actions against advertisement scams were not in any way afinal action or sanction against Invention Submission Firm (Miller,2012). In addition, there was no proof that, PTO had engaged in grossviolation of law in creating destruction of property or other serioussanctions such as revocation of the firms’ license(Edwards,Meiners &amp Ringleb, 2012). The PTO had only taken to advertisingcampaigns to warn investors on the numerous advertising scams thatwere not business worthy.

Similarly,Invention submission Inc. complaints were as a result, of failedinterpretations on what constitutes ‘agency actions’ to warrantcourt legal proceedings. It is based on these facts that the appealcourt termed the case as political and not legal there was noevidence that the PTO had in any way mentioned or even taken anyaction on the firm despite its previous records of unethical businesspractices (Miller &amp Jentz, 2008). The basis of the matter wasthat, the complaint taken to court by the Invention Company was notin the jurisdiction of the courts but rather under the PTO (Miller &ampJentz, 2008). The agency had acted within the constitution authorityin investigating and regulating harmful advertisers, PTO had actedwithin that mandate in conducting customer complaints againstInvention Submission Company (Edwards, Meiners &amp Ringleb, 2012).

Therefore,PTO had acted within its jurisdiction of authority in campaigningagainst harmful advertisers and investigating customers’complaints. The inventor would have tried to solve the matter withthe PTO before proceeding to courts. In the right of these arguments,the courts found nothing to make a judgment against given the factthat no evidence existed that PTO had surpassed its authority andbusiness destruction, the issue raised was baseless and akin to merepolitics (Edwards, Meiners &amp Ringleb, 2012).


EdwardsFrances L., Roger L. Meiners &amp Al H. Ringleb. 2012. The legalEnvironment of Business 11 th Edition. Cengage Learning Publishers.

Miller,R. L. R., &amp Jentz, G. A. (2008).&nbspBusinesslaw today: The essentials : text &amp summarized cases–e-commerce,legal, ethical, and international environment.Australia: Thomson/South-Western West.

Miller,R. L. R. (2012).&nbspModernprinciples of business law: Contracts, the UCC, and businessorganizations.Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.