Legal Opinion

Polaroid Corporation v. Horner

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided September 28, 1961No. Civ. A. 3005-59PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McGARRAGHY, District Judge.

This is an action under Section 146, 35 U.S.Code, in which plaintiffs Polaroid Corporation, as assignee, and William A. Shurcliff, as assignor, seek a judgment that Shurcliff was the first, original and sole inventor of the subject matter defined in Counts 1 to 6, inclusive, of an interference proceeding before the United States Patent Office; and that Polaroid is entitled to receive Letters Patent of the United States for said invention.

The invention in question relates to a radiation detection unit or dosimeter.

On May 13, 1952, Shurcliff filed an application for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Morgan v. DanielsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Agawam Co. v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. United States of America, as Represented by Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture v. Joseph SzuecsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  4. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. General Electric Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1958
  5. Buffington v. BlairCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1941

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Monsanto Company v. KampDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967
  2. Norman W. Kirschke and General Electric Company v. William C. LamarCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  3. Anderson v. AndersonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1975
  4. Potter Instrument Co. v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
  5. Vogel v. JonesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1972

2 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