Legal Opinion
Young v. Bullitt
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided May 15, 1956No. Patent Appeal No. 6202PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of invention of the subject matter to the senior party Bullitt, appellee here. The interfering subject matter is defined in the single count as follows:
A fluorinated acyl peroxide having the formula
O O II II F(CF2)n C-O-O-C(CF2)n-F wherein n is an integer of at least 2.
Bullitt is a patentee, but since the application of the junior party, Young and Stoops, was copending with, that on which Bullitt’s patent was granted, Young and Stoops have the burden of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Farrington v. MikeskaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- Searle v. GlarumCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Guinot v. HullCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
- Kvalnes v. WrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Brooker v. RiesterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947
3Cited by8 opinions
- Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Monsanto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- James U. Mann v. Byron H. Werner and Robert J. ReidCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Melvin D. Hurwitz v. George Shiu Yim PoonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Richard J. Clauss and Henry Brown v. Donald Gardner Foulke, Otto Kardos and Herman KoretzkyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.