Legal Opinion

Heston v. Kuhlke

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided September 29, 1948No. Civ. A. No. 22159PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILKIN, District Judge,

This action was brought under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, Section 63 of Title 35 U.S.C.A. The Complaint alleges that the plaintiff Heston was party to four interference proceedings in the United States Patent Office, Nos. 78936, 78937, 77479, and 78938, involving means and methods of removing tires from vulcanizing molds, and that he had been denied a patent. The case was submitted upon the record of the decisions of the Board of Interference Examiners, additional oral testimony, exhibits, stipulations, and briefs. The Complaint prays this court to adjudge…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. LozierCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  2. Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Paine & Williams Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Christensson v. HogdalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  2. Eastman Kodak Company v. EI DuPONT De NEMOURS & COMPANYDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1968
  3. Bunny Bear, Inc. v. Dennis Mitchell IndustriesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API