Legal Opinion
The Plastic Contact Lens Company v. Robert Gottschalk, Commissioner of Patents
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided September 17, 1973No. 72-1141PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TAMM, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the complaint in an action to obtain a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1970). The sole ground for dismissal relied upon by the trial court is that the action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Plástic Contact Lens Co. v. Schuyler, 334 F.Supp. 434, 467 (D.D.C. 1971). We reverse.
This case arises from the appellant’s latest attempt to obtain a patent for a “corneal contact lens with peripheral clearance.” Appellant’s original [“parent”] application, Serial…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Application of Milton E. HerrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Walter S. Kaghan, William J. Schmitt and Percy M. KayCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- General Tire and Rubber Company v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1960
- Kollsman v. LaddDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1964
- Fluck v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Union Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Han Baek Trading Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Stevenson v. Grentec, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Richard Lawrence Stevenson v. Grentec, Inc., Richard Lawrence Stevenson v. Mojo Boards South Bay Recreational Products, Inc., Richard Lawrence Stevenson v. Wayne Brown D/B/A Wayne Brown SurfboardsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981