Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co. v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co. v. Coe

144 F.2d 517, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 175, 62 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 10, 1944·No. No. 8508·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint in this case attempts to state a cause of action under Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, and asks the court to authorize and direct the Commissioner of Patents to issue a patent to plaintiff. The record, however, shows and plaintiff admits that all the claims involved are copied [518]*518from two other patents for the purpose of provoking interference proceedings and that no patent can be authorized until those proceedings are determined.

The dismissal of the complaint by the court below will be affirmed on the authority of Hoover Co. v. Coe, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 144 F.2d 514.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The complaint in this case attempts to state a cause of action under Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, and asks the court to authorize and direct the Commissioner of Patents to issue a patent to plaintiff. The record, however, shows and plaintiff admits that all the claims involved are copied [518]*518from two other patents for the purpose of provoking interference proceedings and that no patent can be authorized until those proceedings are determined.

The dismissal of the complaint by the court below will be affirmed on the authority of Hoover Co. v. Coe, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 144 F.2d 514.

Affirmed.

Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co. v. Coe, 144 F.2d 517, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 175, 62 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

144 F.2d 517 (Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co. v. Coe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related