Legal Opinion
Boyce v. Anderson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 12, 1971No. Nos. 26308, 22163PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge:
This case originated in the United States Patent Office as an interference between competing applicants for a patent on the same invention. At issue is the priority of invention of a method of pitting peaches as conceived by John A. Boyce and, separately, by Earl R. Anderson.
The board of patent interferences awarded priority to Anderson. Boyce and his assignee, FMC Corporation, being dissatisfied with the decision of the board, then commenced this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146, naming as defendants Anderson and his assignee, Filper Corporation. The district court…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Townsend v. SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- Radio Corporation of America and United States of America v. International Standard Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- Gordon Gould v. Arthur L. Schawlow and Charles H. TownesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- American Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1986
- Gould v. General Photonics Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1982
- Haskell v. ColebourneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.