Legal Opinion

Kuhne Identification Systems, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 6, 1936No. E-387PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge

The defendant contends that the invention, as defined in plaintiff’s patent, resides in a sequence of steps required for producing substantially invisible fingerprints, footprints, and the like, with a substantially invisible impression-making material, and then chemically developing the invisible impressions, or prints, to render them readable or permanent for record purposes; that none of the claims of the patent specifies or includes in their phraseology, selected to define the patent monopoly, any specific chemical or ingredient, and that the patent is invalid for the reason that each and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Russell v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  4. White v. DunbarSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Strumskis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  2. Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., Ferdinando Carlo Reggio, and Chandler-Evans Corp. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
  3. Badowski v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
  4. Witold A. Badowski v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
  5. Pratt & Whitney Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API