Legal Opinion
Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided December 7, 1995No. Civ. A. 95-881-APublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLIS, District Judge.
Section 102(g) of Title 35 sets forth, in two sentences, the rule of priority of invention as a condition of patentability. 1 The first sentence establishes that a person is not entitled to a patent if the invention was made earlier by someone else who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it. The second sentence is an instruction on how to determine priority of invention. This summary judgment motion presents the novel question whether the second sentence is applicable in infringement suits, as well as in interference proceedings.
I
The relevant facts…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mohasco Corp. v. SilverSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips 66 Company, and Phillips Driscopipe, Inc., Defendants-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1996
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1998
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1998