Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided August 15, 1938No. 6940PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MILLER, Associate Justice.

On October 28, 1925, Klein and Brown, appellant’s predecessors in interest, applied for a patent upon a process for the manufacture of waterproof sheet abrasive material, in the nature of sandpaper. On October 9, 1928, a patent was issued to them containing four claims. Subsequent thereto Klein and Brown surrendered their patent, alleging the specification to be defective and insufficient; and on October 2, 1930, they applied for its reissue. This application, as amended, contained the original claims and several additional ones. The claims, which were the same as…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  4. Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Radtke Patents Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Dyer v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  4. In re SchlittlerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  5. W. F. & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1943

11 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