Legal Opinion
Marshall B. Alpert v. Harvey L. Slatin
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 25, 1962No. Patent Appeal 6766PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge. •
Despite the voluminous record and briefs which we have been here required to consider, the single comparatively simple issue on this appeal is that of priority of invention of a process for producing titanium metal which is defined in the single count as follows:
“2. The process of producing titanium metal in solid form comprising, dissolving a material of the group consisting of titanium dichloride and titanium trichloride as a solute in a solvent molten bath composed of materials of the group consisting of alkali metal chlorides and alkaline-earth chlorides and mixtures…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. BousquetCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940
- Teter v. KearbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Ivar Jepson v. William D. Egly and Columbus W. Harris, (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Senkus v. JohnstonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Sydney Archer v. Domenick PapaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Invitrogen Corp. (Formerly Known as Life Technologies, Inc.) v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- In Re Scott T. JolleyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.