Legal Opinion
Shindelar v. Holdeman
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided September 4, 1980No. Patent Appeal No. 80-522PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Interferences (board) which awarded priority of invention of the count in issue to the senior party-applicants Holdeman et al.1 based on its holding that, while the junior party-applicant Shindelar2 had actually reduced the invention of the count to practice prior to the earliest date proven by Holdeman et al., Shindelar had suppressed or concealed the invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)3 and, therefore, lost the right to a patent as against Holdeman et al.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Young v. DworkinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Peeler v. MillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Horwath v. LeeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- Richard J. Clauss and Henry Brown v. Donald Gardner Foulke, Otto Kardos and Herman KoretzkyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Wilson v. GoldmarkCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
3Cited by15 opinions
- Apotex Usa, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Frank E. Paulik and Robert G. Schultz v. Nabil Rizkalla and Charles N. WinnickCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- The Dow Chemical Company v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Robert S. Lutzker v. Catherine PletCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.