Legal Opinion

Ross v. McQuay, Inc.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided July 26, 1966No. 4-65-Civ-72PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEVITT, Chief Judge.

Defendants move for summary judgment in this patent infringement action alleging that United States Patent No. 3,101,598, involving an ice-making machine, is invalid as a matter of law by reason of the provisions of 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 184 and 185.

These two sections are part of a statutory scheme contained in 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 181-188, designed to insure the secrecy of certain information and knowledge sought to be patented, the disclosure of which to foreign patent authorities might be detrimental to national security.

Section 184 provides.

Except when…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McCulloch Motors Corp. v. Oregon Saw Chain Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1965
  2. Blake v. Bassick CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1965
  3. Davidson Rubber Co. v. Sheller Manufacturing Corp.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1965
  4. Pillsbury Company v. General Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1966
  5. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. StockwellDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1956

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kortright Capital Partners LP v. Investcorp Investment Advisers LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2019
  2. SEALECTRO CORPORATION v. LVC Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API