Krenzer v. Stoffel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Dissent
LANE, Judge, with whom MILLER, Judge,
joins, dissenting.
With all due respect, I find myself in disagreement with a substantial portion of the opinion of the majority in this case. I do agree with that portion of the majority opinion which finds Krenzer’s first and third contentions in his petition completely groundless. If these were the only contentions in the petition, I would have no trouble joining my colleagues in denying it. However, I am most troubled by Krenzer’s second contention, to wit, that Stoffel et al. (Stoffel) committed fraud on the PTO and this court in withholding evidence…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. CurtissCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. ReynoldsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Robert S. Kravig and Arnold E. Johnson v. David J. HendersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Smith v. HaywardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.