Legal Opinion
Martin v. Johnson
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 27, 1972No. 8559PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lane, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of the invention of the sole count in issue to the party Johnson. We affirm the decision of the board.. The count is drawn to a herbicidal compound which is a substituted urea chemically named 3- (p-bromophenyl) -1-methoxy-l-methylurea and reads as follows:
1. The compound of the formula
The interference, between the Johnson application1 and the Martin et al. (Martin) patent,2 was provoked by Johnson, who copied a claim from the patent. Johnson’s application is a continuation-in-part of Serial…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Application of Eric D. BrownCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Roland Ralph Dileone and Howard Robert LucasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Arthur H. AhlbrechtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Karl Folkers and Clifford H. ShunkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wagoner v. BargerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- In re DaviesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- Weil v. FritzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- Snitzer v. EtzelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.