Legal Opinion

Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided January 30, 1939No. 7221, 7222PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

• ,-cc ix. -tt t. *. »r , , - Plaintiff, the Hobart Manufacturing Company, filed a bill in equity in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ostensibly under Tit. 35,'§.63, of the U.S. Code, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63 (R.S. § 4915), against Conway P. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, and Vincent W. Cunningham. The bill prayed that plaintiff and not Cunningham be adjudged entitled to a patent for improvements in a washing machine. It showed that the Patent Office had held interference proceedings, in which Cunningham’s right to make the claims in suit had…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. LangmuirCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
  2. Hazeltine Corporation v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
  3. Armstrong v. De ForestCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
  4. Drackett Co. v. Chamberlain Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936
  5. Melling v. Gordon Form Lathe Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1926

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Radtke Patents Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. Speed Products. Co., Inc. v. Tinnerman Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948
  3. Tomlinson of High Point v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  4. Henry L. Hayes v. Frank W. LivermontCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960
  5. Continental Distilling Corporation v. Old Charter Distillery Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950

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