Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Copelands' Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Copelands' Sports v. Cnv, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided October 13, 1989No. 89-1053, 89-1079Published

1ConcurrencePauline Newman, Circuit Judge

I agree with this court’s holding that, on the facts of this case, no sufficient basis for interlocutory appeal has been shown. I reach this conclusion applying the standards that we and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals have traditionally exercised with respect to appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office. See, e.g., Champion Products, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 614 F.2d 763, 765, 204 USPQ 833, 834 (CCPA 1980); Toro Co. v. Hardigg Industries, Inc., 549 F.2d 785, 193 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1977); SCOA Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy & Cohen, Inc., 530 F.2d 953, 955, 189 USPQ 15, 17 (CCPA 1976);…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Carson v. American Brands, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Mark Green and Corporate Accountability Research Group v. Department of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API