Legal Opinion
Shell Development Co. v. Pure Oil Co.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 4, 1953No. Civ. 2434-51 and 2776-51PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KEECH, District Judge.
There are before the court two actions under R.S. § 4915 [1952 Revision, 35 U.S. C.A. §§ 145, 146], Shell Development Co. v. Pure Oil Co., Civil Action No. 2434-51, wherein Shell seeks issuance of a patent, and Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Incorporated v. Pure Oil Co., Civil Action No. 2776-51, wherein Socony seeks issuance of a patent. These actions grew out of applications filed by Zublin, assignor of Shell, Cauley, Assignor of Socony, and Bond, assignor of Pure Oil, for a patent on the same subject matter. An interference proceeding followed in the Patent Office, resulting…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. National City Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Monsanto Company v. KampDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- Radio Corporation of America v. Philco CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
- Span-Deck, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation v. Fab-Con, Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation and Rauenhorst Corporation, Aminnesota CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.