Matthew Francis McGuire

How Judge McGuire rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge McGuire no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1941–1986
Appointed by
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
Commissioned
August 1, 1941
Education
College of the Holy Cross, A.B., 1921; Boston University School of Law, LL.B., 1926
Signed orders read
25

About Judge McGuire

Matthew Francis McGuire was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Judge McGuire received a commission on August 1, 1941. Judge McGuire assumed senior status on October 7, 1966 and served until death on January 24, 1986.

How Judge McGuire decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Uncontested expert testimony and experimental evidence overcame the usual administrative presumption on a technical patent issue.

“Uncontested testimony by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses leads the Court to this conclusion.”

He used equitable principles to protect a diligent applicant from losing a critical filing date because the original papers were unexpectedly lost in the mail.

“the justifiably unexpected theft or loss of the original documents from the mails should not be permitted to prejudice the rights of a plaintiff not himself culpable.”

Cautions

Equitable relief required standing and an unlawful invasion of a legally protected right; harmful government action alone was not enough.

“Plaintiff has no standing to sue.”

He deferred to established administrative patent practice when the challenger could not show that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully, or beyond its discretion.

“The Court, therefore, finds nothing in the action taken by the Patent Office warranting the conclusion that what was done was either arbitrary or capricious”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Morania Oil Tanker Corp. v. Humphrey
· 1957-06-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Tuller v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maat-Schappij N.V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
· 1959-04-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the motion for summary judgment should be and is granted.”

Hellmann v. Brownell
· 1954-02-04
Motion to produce documents (plaintiff) Denied

“Denied.”

Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v. Lerman
· 1951-07-14
Trademark claim (plaintiff) Granted

“Judgment for plaintiff.”

Motion to dismiss counterclaim (plaintiff) Granted

“Counterclaim dismissed.”

McCarthy v. Benton
· 1952-11-12
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“Motion denied for these and other reasons equally controlling”

De Lano v. United States
· 1959-06-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted.”

Hansen v. Brownell
· 1955-10-24
Motion for new trial (plaintiff) Denied

“Motion for new trial denied.”

Hill-Lanham, Inc. v. Lightview Development Corp.
· 1957-01-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Motion denied.”

Folkins v. Watson
· 1954-05-20
Patent application (plaintiffs) Denied

“The question before the court is not whether or not the plaintiffs’ application is patentable but whether or not the Board of Appeals was clearly wrong in denying a patent.8 I do not find so.”

Greene v. Wilson
· 1957-03-29
Summary judgment (government) Granted

“the Government’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”

International Workers Order, Inc. v. Clark
· 1949-04-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Motion to dismiss granted.”

United States v. Young
· 1953-04-29
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“Motion for new trial denied on all grounds.”

A historical record

Judge McGuire no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.