Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

340 F.2d 786
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 5, 1965·No. 18563·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this case is whether a eopending patent is part of *787 the “prior art” within the meaning of that term as used in 35 U.S.C. § 103, and whether a copending patent is a bar to a patent application only if it actually describes the invention for which patent is sought.

Having been unsuccessful in the Patent Office in their application for patent, appellants [plaintiffs] filed suit in the District Court to obtain a judgment authorizing appellee [defendant], Commissioner of Patents, to issue the patent applied for by them. The District Court, after a full hearing, rendered an opinion finding for appellee and against appellants, and dismissing the complaint. Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Ladd, 226 F.Supp. 459 (D.D.C.1964).

We are in agreement with the opinion of the District Court. Accordingly, it follows that the judgment of the District Court must be and is

Affirmed.

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

Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, 340 F.2d 786 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

340 F.2d 786 (Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Bass
474 F.2d 1276 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
Hiester v. Miller's Super Markets, Inc.
250 F. Supp. 466 (D. Colorado, 1966)
Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner
382 U.S. 252 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Eli Lilly and Company v. Brenner
248 F. Supp. 402 (District of Columbia, 1965)
Application of Erwin F. Schoenewaldt
343 F.2d 1000 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1965)