Legal Opinion
Naber v. Cricchi
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided December 22, 1977No. Appeal No. 77-556PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences (board) awarding priority of invention of the counts in issue to the junior party, Cricchi. The counts were copied by Cricchi1 from a patent to Naber et al. (Naber) No. 3,719,866, issued March 6, 1973, and entitled “Semiconductor Memory Device.” The dispositive question, which the board decided in favor of Cricchi, is whether Cricchi was reasonably diligent from a time just prior to Naber’s entry into the field (June 1970) until Cricchi’s actual reduction to practice (September…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Young v. DworkinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. GoodrichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Rey-Bellet v. EngelhardtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Kendall v. SearlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- Meitzner v. MindickCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 1996
- Owen W. Griffith v. Tsuneo Kanamaru, Susumu Shinagawa, and Mitsuko AsaiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Windsurfing International, Inc. v. Fred Ostermann GmbHDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Ati Technologies Ulc v. IancuCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.