Legal Opinion
Hambuechen v. Schorger
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided February 1, 1926No. 1801PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the senior party and patentee, Sehorger.
There is little or no dispute as to the facts. The invention is a simple one, and relates to a dry cell, such as is used in flash lights; the advance over the prior art consisting in dipping the core of the cell “in a magma to form a bibulous envelope therefor.”
Early in August of 1917 Sehorger conceived and reduced the invention to practice. Within a few months of that time he had manufactured and sold thousands of devices…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Petersen v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
- Curtain Supply Co. v. National Lock Washer Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- Emerson v. National Cylinder Gas CompanyDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956
- Stresau v. IpsenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1935
- Art Metal Works, Inc. v. Abraham Straus, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1931
- Pyzel v. BlackCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928
- Overstreet v. AJNC Industries LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2021