Legal Opinion
Broderson v. Marzall
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided November 23, 1951No. 10631_1Published
1Opinion of the Court
194 F.2d 138
90 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 91 U.S.P.Q. 259
BRODERSON,
v.
MARZALL.
No. 10631.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 31, 1951.
Decided Nov. 23, 1951.
Harold T. Stowell, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C., with whom E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent [90 U.S.App.D.C. 79] Office, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.
T. Carl Nixon, Rochester, N.Y., filed a brief on behalf of the University of Rochester as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Abbott v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- Radtke Patents Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.