Ferdinand August Geiger

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin district Appointed by William Howard Taft (Republican) 25 signed orders read

How Judge Geiger decides

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

What persuades

Geiger required more than speculative risk before treating a patent licensee as constructively evicted.

“something more than mere apprehension, mere possibility of contest, or mere speculation as to the correctness of a view expressed by some tribunal which does not reach or bind the parties to the license agreement, should be shown.”

Procedural preferences

Geiger treated a prima facie ownership showing as requiring concrete rebuttal rather than a general assertion.

“The objector had made a good prima facie case; and the bankrupt’s assertion that he acted as agent, that the transaction was in the interest of other members of the family, does not amount to proof.”

Cautions

Geiger gave no weight to Patent Office classifications when they did not illuminate whether two structures were analogous.

“any attempt to fortify a contention respecting the analogy between a reference structure — cited or not cited — by taking note of patent office classification or divisions in which a patent may be found, or an application heard and examined, is simply futile”

Signed rulings

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

International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Diana Mfg. Co.
· 1933-07-28
Patent infringement claim (plaintiff) Granted

“the Bauer patent should be held valid and infringed as to claims in suit; and a decree may be entered accordingly.”

Del Norte Co. v. Wilkinson
· 1928-05-01
Tax refund claim (plaintiff) Granted

“The plaintiff may take judgment prayed for in each of the eases.”

United States v. Cedarburg Milk Co.
· 1922-11-01
Government tax claim (United States) Granted

“The government is entitled to a decree, whose terms may be settled upon five days’ notice.”

Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Eason Oil Co.
· 1930-09-11
Motion to strike defenses (plaintiff) Granted

“I think plaintiff’s motion should be granted, and an order may be entered accordingly.”

In re Kroeger Bros.
· 1920-02-02
Petition to review referee (claimant) Denied

“I agree with the view expressed by the referee and in his disposition of the claim. The order is affirmed.”

Kalt-Zimmers Mfg. Co. v. Marine Nat. Exchange Bank
· 1933-06-15
Petition to review referee (challenger) Granted

“An order may be entered reversing the decision of the referee.”

Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. E. C. Tecktonius Mfg. Co.
· 1920-02-02
Demurrer (carrier) Denied

“An order may be entered overruling the demurrer to the counterclaim, with leave within 20 days to reply.”

Carman & Co. v. Phœnix Products Co.
· 1932-01-14
Patent infringement claim (plaintiffs) Denied

“Upon these views the defendant may take a decree.”

Drovers' Deposit Nat. Bank v. Tichenor
· 1913-02-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“The motion to remand is granted, and an order may be entered accordingly.”

In re Diamond
· 1913-04-03
Bankruptcy discharge (bankrupt) Denied

“An order may be entered confirming the master’s renort and denying a discharge.”

In re Zimmerman
· 1913-02-18
Petition to review referee (bankrupts) Granted

“the referee’s order is reversed, with direction to allow the same accordingly.”

In re Kitzekow
· 1918-04-06
Petition for writ of certiorari (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“I shall decline to take jurisdiction of the application for the issuance of the writ.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No assigned docket records were returned for Geiger’s tenure, so no caseload mix or case-duration summary is available.

Put Judge Geiger's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Geiger actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Geiger's own signed orders and cites them.