Scalione v. Heimann

D.C. Circuit

Scalione v. Heimann

12 F.2d 172, 56 App. D.C. 231, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3183

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1926

DocketNo. 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F.2d 172 (Scalione v. Heimann) 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

Scalione v. Heimann, 12 F.2d 172, 56 App. D.C. 231, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3183 (D.C. Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This interfer-

ence involves the same applications of the parties Scalione and Heimann that were involved in Patent Appeal No. 1824, — App. D. C. — , 12 F.(2d) 171, just decided. Heimann relies upon his German application, as did the party Bosch in patent appeal No. 1824. Since the rulings in that case are applicable here, the facts being substantially the same, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This interfer-

ence involves the same applications of the parties Scalione and Heimann that were involved in Patent Appeal No. 1824, — App. D. C. — , 12 F.(2d) 171, just decided. Heimann relies upon his German application, as did the party Bosch in patent appeal No. 1824. Since the rulings in that case are applicable here, the facts being substantially the same, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.2d 172, 56 App. D.C. 231, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scalione-v-heimann-cadc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack