Legal Opinion
Clark v. Resinous Products & Chemical Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 9, 1947No. Civil Action No. 4075Published
1Opinion of the Court
BARD, District Judge.
This is an action under R.S. § 4915,1 brought by a dissatisfied party to an interference proceeding in the United States Patent Office. On the basis of a stipulation entered into by the parties, and the records of the United States Patent Office in Interference No. 79,736, I make the following special
Findings of Fact:
1. On January 10, 1941, defendant Herman A. Bruson filed an application for Bis (2 — Cyanoethyl) ether and process for making same. On May 23,. 1941 Heinrich Hopff and Wilhelm Rapp filed an application for a process for the production of B.B.’ — Dicyano…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Butterworth v. United States Ex Rel. HoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hoover Co. v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Carborundum Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Barrett Co. v. Koppers Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. American Triergon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1938
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.