## Facts

- Louis M. Potts and Teletype Corporation sought judicial relief to obtain a patent after the Patent Office, through the Commissioner of Patents, refused issuance.
- The federal district court entered judgment against Potts and Teletype, sustaining the Patent Office’s determination.
- Potts and Teletype appealed, and the court of appeals issued an opinion and decision adverse to them.
- After the appellate decision, Potts and Teletype moved to vacate the court’s judgment and withdraw its opinion.
- The motion argued that the court’s prior opinion relied on extra-record generalizations about corporate versus individual invention, corporate research expenditures, and congressional policy, allegedly treated as “facts” through judicial notice.
- The movants asserted some of those general statements were inaccurate or unsupported and should not have been used in resolving the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the court’s prior reliance on general policy materials and broad economic or social propositions amounted to improper judicial notice.
2. Whether any asserted impropriety or inaccuracy in those statements required vacating the judgment and withdrawing the prior opinion.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to vacate and refused to withdraw its prior opinion.
- The court treated the challenged discussion as reliance on “legislative facts” (general background informing legal reasoning), not case-specific adjudicative facts requiring proof in the record.
- The court concluded that the contested statements were not necessary to the result and did not undermine the correctness of the judgment.
- Even assuming arguable imprecision in the generalized statements, the court held it did not warrant the extraordinary relief of vacatur.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may consult and refer to legislative history, congressional findings, and general social or economic information as “legislative facts” without formal evidentiary proof.
- Disagreement with, or alleged inaccuracy in, generalized policy commentary does not justify vacating an appellate judgment absent a showing the challenged material affected the outcome.
- Vacatur and withdrawal of an appellate opinion are extraordinary remedies; the movant must show a material error tied to the dispositive legal or evidentiary basis of the decision.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit declined to vacate its prior patent-appeal decision because the challenged policy discussion was treated as legislative background rather than adjudicative factfinding and, in any event, was not outcome-determinative.


Potts v. Coe, 145 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1944)