U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1966

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 18, 1966 · Bazelon, Wright, Tamm

356 F.2d 367 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Raymond E. Martin, Attorney, U. S. Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, at the time the brief was filed, was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. William D. Hall, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Elliott I. Pollock, Washington, D. C., ivas on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Application of Jack H. Hofstetter (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1966)
Deutsche Goed-Und Sieber-Scheideanstalt v. Commissioner of Patents (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
Railex Corp. v. Joseph Guss & Sons, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
In re Mixon (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1973)
Brown v. Gottschalk (D.C. Cir. 1973)
National Steel Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (District Court, D. Maryland 1970)
United States v. Glaxo Group Limited (District Court, District of Columbia 1969)
Francis G. Brown v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
Brown v. United States (Court of Claims 1968)
California Research Corporation v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Edwid E. Hays and Wallace & Tiernan, Inc. v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Radoev v. Brenner (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
Freeman v. Brenner (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
Sikora v. Brenner (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
Scarlati v. Brenner (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.