Legal Opinion

Ernest Samuel Nossen and E. S. Nossen Laboratories, Inc. v. The United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 20, 1970No. 350-61PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING

2Per curiam

Following the decision of this court, 416 F.2d 1362, 189 Ct.Cl. 1, (1969), that the patent claims were invalid and that the suit under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (1964) must be dismissed, the plaintiffs have made a timely motion for rehearing under Rule 151. The motion must be and is denied for the reasons that follow:

Our conclusion that the claims were invalid rested entirely upon anticipating disclosures by a German scientist, a Dr. Geweeke, in a patent which the German patent office issued to him in 1932, No. 556,882, and in two articles Dr. Geweeke published…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. General Electric Company, a Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  2. Ernest Samuel Nossen and E. S. Nossen Laboratories, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  3. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  4. John A. Henneberger v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Douglas v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
  2. Nicholas C. Ricucci v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
  3. Pennco Trucking Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  4. Fred A. Arnold, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API