Legal Opinion
Harold Ladd Pierce v. Herman Muehleisen and Muehleisen Perlite Processing, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 3, 1955No. 14184PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORR, Circuit Judge.
Appellees filed an action in the trial court seeking a judgment declaring United States patent No. 2,501,962 ■ (hereafter referred to as the Pierce patent) invalid. After trial duly had the trial court held the said patent invalid on several grounds, among which is non-invention. We think the finding as to non-invention is correct and the judgment should be affirmed on that ground.
The Pierce patent, here in issue, teaches a two-step process for commercial expansion of perlite, a glassy volcanic rock which, when expanded, forms material suitable for various commercial uses,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Mandel Brothers, Inc. v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. Kollsman Instrument CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Leesona Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Barr Rubber Products Company v. Sun Rubber CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
- Armour Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., a Delaware Ware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Grinnell Corp. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.