Davis v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks

D.C. Circuit

Davis v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks

652 F.2d 195, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 202

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1981

Docket80-1036

StatusPublished

This text of 652 F.2d 195 (Davis v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, 652 F.2d 195, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 202 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

652 F.2d 195

209 U.S.App.D.C. 202

Davis
v.
Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks

80-1036

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit

3/31/81

D.C.D.C.

AFFIRMED*

*

The following cases have been decided under Local Rule 13(c) without opinion. An asterisk identifies those cases where the judgment or order is accompanied by a Memorandum explanatory of the judgment. Such Memorandum is not included with the opinions of the Court that are printed, and it may not be cited in briefs or memoranda of counsel as precedents, under Local Rule 8(b). However, as Rule 8(b) makes clear, the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum may be referred to for purposes of doctrines such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case, which turn on the binding effect of the judgment, and not on its status as precedent for other cases

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

652 F.2d 195

209 U.S.App.D.C. 202

Davis
v.
Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks

80-1036

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit

3/31/81

D.C.D.C.

AFFIRMED*

*

The following cases have been decided under Local Rule 13(c) without opinion. An asterisk identifies those cases where the judgment or order is accompanied by a Memorandum explanatory of the judgment. Such Memorandum is not included with the opinions of the Court that are printed, and it may not be cited in briefs or memoranda of counsel as precedents, under Local Rule 8(b). However, as Rule 8(b) makes clear, the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum may be referred to for purposes of doctrines such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case, which turn on the binding effect of the judgment, and not on its status as precedent for other cases

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 F.2d 195, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-commissioner-of-patents-trademarks-cadc-1981.