Legal Opinion
Patlex Corp., Inc. v. Mossinghoff
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 17, 1983No. Civ. A. 82-5472PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CAHN, District Judge.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action for declaratory and in-junctive relief. Plaintiffs, Patlex Corporation, Inc. (“Patlex”) and Gordon Gould (“Gould” or “plaintiffs”) seek an order declaring unconstitutional certain procedures used by defendant, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in reexamining plaintiffs’ patent. Plaintiffs originally filed this action against PTO Commissioner Gerald' Mossinghoff and the PTO. On January 31, 1983, this court granted Control Laser Corporation, Inc., (“Control Laser”) leave to intervene as a third…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Patlex Corporation v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Clair v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Patlex Corporation v. Gerald J. MossinghoffCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Gordon Gould v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Gordon Gould, Refac International, Limited, Patlex Corporation, and Creative Patents, Inc. v. Control Laser Corporation and Holobeam Laser CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.