Walter Schindler v. Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

Walter Schindler v. Commissioner of Patents

360 F.2d 836, 124 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 149 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 594, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6382

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1966

Docket16-1169

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 836 (Walter Schindler v. Commissioner of Patents) 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

Walter Schindler v. Commissioner of Patents, 360 F.2d 836, 124 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 149 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 594, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6382 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel, and it appearing to this Court, contrary to the *837 finding of the trial court, that there is evidence in the record of comparative tests relating to anti-depressant activity of the compound of Claim 8 and that of Example 2 of the Schindler, et al. patent which is of legal significance, and that the original description does support a proffer that the compound of Claim 8 has anti-depressant properties,

Now, therefore, this Court retains jurisdiction in this appeal; and it is

Ordered by the Court that the record on appeal herein be remanded to the District Court with directions:

(1) that it consider such evidence, described above, with such additional evidence as in its discretion and at the request of the parties it might permit to be adduced; and

(2) that it supplement the record with new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and return the enlarged record to this Court in this case.

We express no view on the merits of the appeal nor as to the effect, if any, of the above described evidence.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel, and it appearing to this Court, contrary to the *837 finding of the trial court, that there is evidence in the record of comparative tests relating to anti-depressant activity of the compound of Claim 8 and that of Example 2 of the Schindler, et al. patent which is of legal significance, and that the original description does support a proffer that the compound of Claim 8 has anti-depressant properties,

Now, therefore, this Court retains jurisdiction in this appeal; and it is

Ordered by the Court that the record on appeal herein be remanded to the District Court with directions:

(1) that it consider such evidence, described above, with such additional evidence as in its discretion and at the request of the parties it might permit to be adduced; and

(2) that it supplement the record with new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and return the enlarged record to this Court in this case.

We express no view on the merits of the appeal nor as to the effect, if any, of the above described evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 836, 124 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 149 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 594, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-schindler-v-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack