Legal Opinion
Hatmaker v. Dry Milk Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 4, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThacher, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). In a suit upon a reissued patent it is a good defense to show from the Patent Office record that there was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake in drawing the specification and claims of the original patent, for the statute (R. S. § "4916 [35 USCA § 64]) only authorizes reissue when the original is defective by inadvertence, accident, or mistake. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 S. Ct. 174, 28 L. Ed. 665. From the record the following appears:
Original application was filed June 29, 1906. All of the claims were rejected on reference to two patents issued…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Miller v. Brass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Mahn v. HarwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Eames v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Louisville Frog, Switch & Signal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
- Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. ThomasDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1932