Legal Opinion

Young Et Al. v. Orville H. Bullitt, Jr.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 15, 1956No. 6202Published

1Opinion of the CourtWoeley, Judge

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of invention of the subject matter to the senior party Bullitt, appellee here. The interfering subject matter is defined in the single count as follows:

A fluorinated acyl peroxide having the formula

Bullitt is a patentee, but since the application of the junior party, Young and Stoops, was copending with that on which Bullitt’s patent was granted, Young and Stoops have the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Bullitt did not take testimony and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Farrington v. MikeskaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  2. Searle v. GlarumCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  3. Guinot v. HullCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
  4. Kvalnes v. WrightCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  5. Brooker v. RiesterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API