Legal Opinion
Petitioning Creditors v. Matsco, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 6, 2001No. Nos. 99-56856, 99-56868PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
As is often true in the field of intellectual property, we must apply an antiquated statute in a modern context. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 of the Patent Act, or Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as adopted in California, requires the holder of a security interest in a patent to record that interest with the federal Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in order to perfect the interest as against a subsequent lien creditor.1 We answer “no”; neither the Patent Act nor Article 9 so requires. We therefore affirm the decision of…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Petitioning Creditors Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Cybernetic Services, Inc., Dba Silent Radio, Inc. ("Moldo") v. Matsco, Inc., in Re: Cybernetic Services, Inc., D/B/A Silent Radio, Inc., Debtor. Byron Z. Moldo, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Matsco, Inc., and Matsco Financial Corporation, Petitioning CreditorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001