Legal Opinion
Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 1, 1948No. 9331, 9334PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
This is the second time that this litigation has been before us. In the District Court Lorenz and Wilson (Lorenz), persons interested in Lorenz Patent No. 2,084,446, one of two interfering patents, brought suit under R.S. § 4918, 35 U.S.C.A. § 66, against Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company (Colgate), the owner of the other interfering patent, Ittner, No. 1,918,603. The complaint prayed for an adjudication that Lorenz was the first and original inventor of the process disclosed in his patent, that the Lorenz patent was valid and that the Ittner patent was void. Colgate filed…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Pennock v. DialogueSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Egbert v. LippmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
- Kendall v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Anthony J. Cali v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. And Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Special Devices, Inc. v. Oea, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1967
- Piet v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.