Legal Opinion

Heidbrink v. McKesson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 3, 1931No. 5736PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judge.

A patent having theretofore issued to plaintiff-appellant, certain claims therein were placed in interference with the chums of defendant-appellee’s then pending application. Priority was awarded defendant-appellee, and this decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. No appeal was thereupon prosecuted to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, but, instead of so appealing, plaintiff-appellant instituted this action in the District Court, claiming the right' to do so by virtue of Rev. St. § 4915 (35 U. S. C. § 63 [35 USCA § 63])1 as it is contended such section…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. MacGregor v. ChesterfieldDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1929

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Christensson v. HogdalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  2. United States Ex Rel. White v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  3. Duplex Envelope Co. v. Denominational Envelope Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
  4. Wettlaufer v. RobinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
  5. Syracuse Washing Mach. Corp. v. VieauCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API