Legal Opinion
Mattor v. Coolegem
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided March 18, 1976No. Patent Appeal No. 75-616PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to senior party Coolegem. The board concluded that junior party Mattor had not established an actual reduction to practice earlier than February 7, 1969, the date afforded Coolegem based upon his foreign priority document.1 We reverse.
The Invention
The invention herein is an electropho-tographic element produced by coating a conductive support with a dispersion of an organic photoconductor (OPC) in an electrically insulating binder.2 The sole count of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. KassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Edwin H. Land and Meroe M. Morse v. Francis A. Regan, Jr., Seamon A. Lincoln and Donald E. HansonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Breen v. HenshawCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Arthur William Anderson and William Lawrence Truett v. Gustav Pieper, Hans Rickert and Eberhard SteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Koval v. BodenschatzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
3Cited by12 opinions
- Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Reese v. HurstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Standard Oil Company v. MontedisonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1980
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1984
- Mikus v. WachtelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.