Legal Opinion · Dissent

Krenzer v. Stoffel

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 10, 1977No. Patent Appeal No. 9198Published

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

  1. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. CurtissCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  3. Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. ReynoldsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  4. Robert S. Kravig and Arnold E. Johnson v. David J. HendersonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  5. Smith v. HaywardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951

2 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