Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides

D.C. Circuit

Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides

356 F.2d 367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1966

Docket19669_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 356 F.2d 367 (Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides) 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

Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides, 356 F.2d 367 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellee, alleging unlawful denial of his patent application by the Patent Office, petitioned the District Court, under 35 U.S.C. § 145, to authorize issuance of the patent by the Commissioner. Although finding that “some doubt exists as to the utility” of appellee’s claimed invention, the trial court, citing Application of Nurkiewicz, 338 F.2d 1020, 1022, 52 C.C.P.A. 848,- (1964), as its authority, resolved the doubt in favor of the applicant and ordered the Commissioner to grant the patent. Aghnides v. Reynolds, D.D.C., 241 F. Supp. 280 (1965). In so doing the trial court erred. Whatever may be the rule in patent review proceedings before the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, in trials de novo under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in the District Court, “doubt [as to patentability] is to be resolved,” not in favor of the applicant, but “in favor of the correctness of administrative * * * action.” General Motors Corporation v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 189, 190, 120 F.2d 736, 737, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 688, 62 S.Ct. 302, 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941). See also Stieg v. Commissioner of Patents, 122 U.S.App.D.C. -, 353 F.2d 899 (1965) (per curiam); Zenith Radio Corporation v. Ladd, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 57, 310 F.2d 859, 862 (1962); Schafer v. Watson, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 288 F.2d 144 (1961) (per curiam); Esso Standard Oil Company v. Sun Oil Company, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 157, 229 F.2d 37, 40, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 1027, 100 L.Ed. 1491 (1956).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellee, alleging unlawful denial of his patent application by the Patent Office, petitioned the District Court, under 35 U.S.C. § 145, to authorize issuance of the patent by the Commissioner. Although finding that “some doubt exists as to the utility” of appellee’s claimed invention, the trial court, citing Application of Nurkiewicz, 338 F.2d 1020, 1022, 52 C.C.P.A. 848,- (1964), as its authority, resolved the doubt in favor of the applicant and ordered the Commissioner to grant the patent. Aghnides v. Reynolds, D.D.C., 241 F. Supp. 280 (1965). In so doing the trial court erred. Whatever may be the rule in patent review proceedings before the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, in trials de novo under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in the District Court, “doubt [as to patentability] is to be resolved,” not in favor of the applicant, but “in favor of the correctness of administrative * * * action.” General Motors Corporation v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 189, 190, 120 F.2d 736, 737, cert. denied, 314 U.S. 688, 62 S.Ct. 302, 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941). See also Stieg v. Commissioner of Patents, 122 U.S.App.D.C. -, 353 F.2d 899 (1965) (per curiam); Zenith Radio Corporation v. Ladd, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 57, 310 F.2d 859, 862 (1962); Schafer v. Watson, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 288 F.2d 144 (1961) (per curiam); Esso Standard Oil Company v. Sun Oil Company, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 157, 229 F.2d 37, 40, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 1027, 100 L.Ed. 1491 (1956).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-l-reynolds-acting-commissioner-of-patents-v-elie-p-aghnides-cadc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack