Howard

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint of appellant Howard on the ground (1) that it contains no cause of action cognizable in the United States District Courts and (2) that no diversity of citizenship exists conferring jurisdiction in the district court.

Appellant claims such jurisdiction on the alleged fraudulent action of one of the defendants, Thomas Midgley, Jr., in stealing an alleged secret chemical formula, claimed to have been discovered by Howard, for the use of tetraethyl lead to increase the explosive forcé of gasoline, which formula Midgley allegedly falsely claimed to have discovered and for which, by such fraudulent claim, he procured the issue of a patent under the United States patent laws.

There is no statute creating in the federal courts jurisdiction to entertain an action for the cancellation of the patent by one so claiming to' have been defrauded. United States ex rel. Baldwin Co. v. Robertson, 265 U.S. 168, 180 , 44 S.Ct. 508 , 68 L.Ed. 962 ; Briggs v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 239 U.S. 48, 50 , 36 S.Ct. 6 , 60 L.Ed. 138 ; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434 , 81 U.S. 434, 439 , 20 L.Ed. 858 ; Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Co., 9…