Legal Opinion
Mikus v. Wachtel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 28, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 76-594PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARKEY, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention to Wachtel. We affirm.
*1158This appeal follows from a remand to the board1 to consider appellants’ (Mikus’) Exhibit BH, a “Record of Invention,” in light of our opinion in Blicharz v. Hays, 496 F.2d 603 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974).
Upon remand, the board majority adhered to its award of priority to Wachtel, finding that the “Record of Invention,” inter alia, failed to provide Mikus with corroboration of reduction to practice.
The interference involves the application of Mikus et al.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kenneth L. Berry v. Watt W. Webb, William A. Wissler and William D. ForgengCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- James A. Patterson and Glenn K. Lissner v. Karl-Heinz HauckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. KassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Linkow v. LinkowCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- Mattor v. CoolegemCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- John H. Coleman v. Martin B. DinesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'oreal, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Hahn v. WongCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Reese v. HurstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Arjun SINGH, Appellant, v. Anthony J. BRAKE, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.