Legal Opinion

Line Material Co. v. Ooms

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided December 17, 1945No. 8491Published

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Associate Justice.

In a previous consideration of this case we held that under Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, this court was without jurisdiction to review the case on its merits.1 On certiorari, 65 S.Ct. 1182, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded the cause for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion in Hoover Co. v. Coe.2

Appellants’ claims arose in this fashion: In May of 1934, Schultz, Line Material’s assignor, applied for letters patent on his invention of an electrical fuse construction. Thereafter, in the course of prosecuting this application it became…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hoover Co. v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Hansgirg v. KemmerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  3. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
  4. Forward Process Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
  5. Ellis v. ShawDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1924

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API