Legal Opinion
Switzer v. Watson
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 31, 1960No. Civ. A. No. 185-58PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge*
This is an action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 asking the court to authorize the defendant to grant a patent to plaintiffs on their patent application, Ser. No. 484,-319, filed January 26, 1955, entitled “Penetrant Inspection Methods of Flaw Detection.”
The application in suit contains five claims copied from patent No. 2,667,070 issued to Sockman and Brady January 26, 1954, plaintiffs’ claims 1-5 corresponding, respectively, to claims 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of that patent.
The Patent Office presents two issues to the court:(1) That Canadian patent No. 490,080 which issued January 27,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Abbott v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Esso Standard Oil Company v. Sun Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
- Application of Richard A. Ward and Robert C. SwitzerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Harpman v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1959
- In re FrevertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Loy W. Sockman and Elliott W. Brady v. Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. WardCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. Ward v. Loy W. Sockman and Elliot W. BradyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- In re Mlot-FijalkowskiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. Ward v. Loy W. Sockman and Elliot W. BradyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964