Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe

135 F.2d 836, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1943

DocketNo. 8170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 F.2d 836 (Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe, 135 F.2d 836, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430 (D.C. Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, the District Court correctly found that appellant was not entitled to a patent upon the claims in issue in this case, in view of the prior art. The Patent Office recognized the patentability of the process claims, the operative character of which has made the disputed compounds commercially available. But that the compounds themselves, and their usefulness for the purposes claimed by appellant, had been disclosed by the references upon which the Patent Office and the Court relied, there is no doubt.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice VINSON sat during the argument of this case; concurred in the result when it was considered in conference, but resigned from the Court before the opinion was prepared.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, the District Court correctly found that appellant was not entitled to a patent upon the claims in issue in this case, in view of the prior art. The Patent Office recognized the patentability of the process claims, the operative character of which has made the disputed compounds commercially available. But that the compounds themselves, and their usefulness for the purposes claimed by appellant, had been disclosed by the references upon which the Patent Office and the Court relied, there is no doubt.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice VINSON sat during the argument of this case; concurred in the result when it was considered in conference, but resigned from the Court before the opinion was prepared.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F.2d 836, 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastman-kodak-co-v-coe-cadc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack