Legal Opinion
Boyce v. Anderson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 16, 1968No. Nos. 22163, 22163-APublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge:
This action stems from an interference proceeding before the Patent Office, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 135 (1964), to determine priority of invention. In question was the priority of invention of a method of pitting peaches as conceived by John A. Boyce and Earl R. Anderson, both of whom were parties to the interference proceeding.1 Anderson applied for a patent on this invention on August 6, 1956, and Boyce applied for a patent on substantially the same invention on June 10, 1957. Both applications were pending in the Patent Office when the interference proceeding was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sanford v. KepnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Herb v. PitcairnSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hoover Co. v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. BerryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
3Cited by9 opinions
- T Mobile Northeast LLC v. City of WilmingtonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
- Bates v. Western ElectricDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
- John F. Cody v. Aktiebolaget FlymoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Three S Constructors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Boyce v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.