Hoover Co. v. Coe
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Associate Justice.
Both parties to this suit claim that the sole issue involved is whether the patent claims set out in the complaint are supported by plaintiff’s application. One of these claims has been copied from another patent. Others are substantially the same as the claims in the second patent, yet all of them were formulated for the express purpose of provoking interference proceedings in the Patent Office. All were rejected on the sole ground that they did not read on the disclosure of plaintiff’s application. In substance this meant that the Patent Office did not consider the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Butterworth v. United States Ex Rel. HoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Radtke Patents Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Butler v. ShawU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1884
- Smith v. Carter Carburetor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hoover Co. v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Line Material Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944