Legal Opinion
Haskell v. Colebourne
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 25, 1982No. Appeal No. 81-599PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the unreported decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences (board) in Interference No. 99,782 awarding priority of invention to the senior party Colebourne et al., the inventors named in application serial No. 625,005, filed October 23, 1975, now assigned to Chemical Industries, Ltd., over the junior party Haskell et al., the inventors named in U. S. Patent No. 3,853,591, issued December 10, 1974, upon application serial No. 330,389, filed February 7, 1973, assigned to E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. We reverse.
Backgroun…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Monsanto Company v. KampDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967
- George B. Spero v. Howard J. Ringold and George RosenkranzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. KassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Brown v. BartonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
- Borror v. HerzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Knorr v. PearsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- John D. Scott and Rachel A. Steven v. Satoshi Koyama, Yukio Homoto, and Naoki EsakaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994