Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. General Electric Co.

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided June 18, 1958No. Civ. A. 2188-56PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McGARRAGHY, District Judge.

This is an action under Sec. 146, 35 United States Code, in which the plaintiff, Minnesota Mining and Manufactur ing Company, as assignee of Leo H. Sommer and Edward W. Pietrusza, seeks a judgment that said Sommer and Pietrusza were the first, original and joint inventors of the subject matter defined in counts 3 and 4 of an interference proceeding before the Patent Office, and that plaintiff, as assignee, is entitled to receive letters patent of the United States for said invention. These counts 3 and 4 of the interference are identical with claims 37 and 38 of an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Shell Development Co. v. Pure Oil Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1953
  3. United States of America, as Represented by Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture v. Joseph SzuecsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  4. Podlesak v. McInnerneyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1906
  5. Sundberg v. SchmittCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Monsanto Company v. KampDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967
  2. Norman W. Kirschke and General Electric Company v. William C. LamarCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  3. Eastman Kodak Company v. EI DuPONT De NEMOURS & COMPANYDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1968
  4. Polaroid Corporation v. HornerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1961
  5. Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Monsanto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978

1 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