Legal Opinion
Pyrene-Minimax Corp. v. Palmer
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 1, 1937No. Nos. 6590, 6591PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
These cases have their origin in certain decisions of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding involving applications for patents filed by Burmeister, as*506signor to Pyrene-Minimax Corporation, Palmer, assignor to Amdyco Corporation, and Urquhart, assignor to American Fom-on Company.
The interference involved an invention for a method of extinguishing fire by means of covering the fire with foam created by the introduction of certain dry chemicals into a stream of water carried by a hose from a source of supply to a point of discharge, thus smothering the fire by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Urquhart v. PaschkeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Range Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Langsett v. Marmet CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964
- Sherman v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941