Legal Opinion
Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 1, 1941No. 7663PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs, as the persons interested In Lorenz Patent (No. 2,084,446), one of two interfering patents, brought suit un■der Section 4918, Revised Statutes, 35 U. S.C.A. § 66, against the defendant as the owner of the other interfering patent (Itt-ner, No. 1,918,603). The bill of complaint prayed for an adjudication that Lorenz was the first and original inventor of the process set forth in his patent, that his patent is good and valid and that the Ittner patent is void, inoperative and invalid as to certain claims thereof, and for in-junctive and further relief.
Both…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Christie v. SeyboldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
- Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. LozierCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Gold v. GoldCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Smith v. Carter Carburetor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- S. & S. Corrugated Paper Machinery Co. v. George W. Swift, Jr., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Daniels v. Permutit Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- Etten v. Lovell Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.