Legal Opinion
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Mossinghoff
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 28, 1984No. CA 79-1119PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOHN GARRETT PENN, District Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145. Plaintiff requests that the Court find that the plaintiff is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest in and to the invention and Application Serial No. 598,935, and as such is entitled to receive United States Letters Patent for Titanium Alloy as specified in Claims Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The case came before the Court for trial and this Memorandum constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 52.
I
The underlying facts are as follows: The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Application of Edward Burton LegriceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Alexander P. Deseversky v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Application of Gene R. WilderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Pro-Col Corporation v. Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Henry K. Puharich v. Edward J. BrennerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
3Cited by5 opinions
- Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Donald W. Banner, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Smithkline Beecham Corporation and Beecham Group, P.L.C. v. Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Smithkline Beecham Corporation and Beecham Group, P.L.C. v. Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004