Legal Opinion
Pillsbury Company v. General Mills, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided February 10, 1966No. 4-63 Civ. 408PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NORDBYE, District Judge.
The validity of Patent No. 3,038,808, filed on April 3, 1961, and issued to the plaintiff on June 12, 1962, has been challenged by the defendant by reason of a supplemental disclosure filed in Canada on September 15, 1961, less than six months from the filing date of the United States patent in violation of Section 184, Title 35, United States Code. The supplemental disclosure filed in Canada was a patent application within the meaning of Section 184, Title 35, United States Code. It should be stated that the original application of the plaintiff for a patent, No.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCulloch Motors Corp. v. Oregon Saw Chain Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1965
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Norton CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1965
- Blake v. Bassick CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1965
- Davidson Rubber Co. v. Sheller Manufacturing Corp.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1965
3Cited by5 opinions
- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Norton Company, Studebaker-Packard Corporation, and Hadco CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- General Mills, Inc. v. The Pillsbury CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
- Barr Rubber Products Company v. Sun Rubber CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Union Carbide Corporation v. Microtron CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1966
- Ross v. McQuay, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1966