Case Name: INTERNATIONAL CELLUCOTTON PRODUCTS COMPANY v. CONWAY P. COE, Commissioner of Patents
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1935
Citations: 2 S.C.D.C. (N.S.) 163
Docket Number: Equity No. 56,574
Parties: INTERNATIONAL CELLUCOTTON PRODUCTS COMPANY v. CONWAY P. COE, Commissioner of Patents
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
INTERNATIONAL CELLUCOTTON PRODUCTS COMPANY v. CONWAY P. COE, Commissioner of Patents
Equity No. 56,574
Edward W. Shepard and Cyril A. Soans for plaintiff,
T. A. Hostetler for defendant.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
BAILEY, J.
I am still of the opinion that the Chase case is in point, but I think that it has been practically overruled in the Brashears case. In the latter case the applicant contended that:
"Estoppel cannot be created against an assignee on the ground of its failure to move under Rule 109 to insert a claim for a subject matter which is not disclosed in said assignee's interfering application."
This contention was decided adversely to the applicant by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and, I think, controls the instant case. "While this court is not controlled by the decisions of that court, I think that uniformity in practice should be promoted, and that the decisions of the officials of the Patent Office and of their appellate tribunals in the construction of the rules of the Patent Office should be followed, if not plainly erroneous.
As to the meaning of Rule 109, were it not for many administrative rulings to the contrary, I should construe it as I did in my first memorandum opinion.
The petition for a rehearing is granted and the bill will be dismissed with costs.