Legal Opinion
Peter B. Cooper v. David Goldfarb
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 2, 2001No. 00-1046, 101,100PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves a patent interference that is before us for the second time. Peter B. Cooper and David Goldfarb originally filed their patent applications in 1974. An interference was declared between the applications in 1983, and the Board issued a final decision in 1995, awarding priority to Goldfarb. The Board determined that, although Cooper was the first to conceive the invention at issue, which relates to the fibril length of certain material used for vascular grafts, Goldfarb was the first to reduce the invention to practice. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Peter B. Cooper v. David GoldfarbCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Knorr v. PearsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Heard v. BurtonUnited States Customs Court · 1964
- Langer v. KaufmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Hitzeman v. RutterCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Nfc Technology, LLC v. MatalCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.