Legal Opinion
Application of Rogoff
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 14, 1950No. Misc. No. 113PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WATSON, Chief Judge.
The application came to be heard on motion of petitioner for an order compelling respondents, William S. Watts and Franklin H. Wells to answer certain questions propounded to them in depositions being taken in Interference No. 83,667, now pending in the United States Patent Office.
The interference proceeding was initiated by the United States Patent Office to determine whether William S. Watts, *379one of the respondents, or Julian Rogoff, petitioner herein, is the first inventor of an ¡invention concerning an electrical connector, both being rival claimants seeking a valid…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Application of OppenauerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
- Dooley Improvements, Inc. v. Motor Improvements, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1937
- Fishburn v. VincentCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937
- Cooper v. DowningCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1916
- Geophysical Development Corp. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stamicarbon, N v. v. Chemical Construction Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1973
- Eastman Kodak Company v. EI DuPONT De NEMOURS & COMPANYDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1968
- Hogan v. ZletzDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1970
- In re RogoffDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1951