Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

252 F.2d 861

Docket No. 13945.

Shell Development Company, a Delaware Corporation, Doing Business at Emeryville, California v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 16, 1957. Decided March 6, 1958.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1958-03-06

2 counsel of record

Relies on Shell Development Company v. Watson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1958-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1985

4 federal appellate ·

601958196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Edward M. Curran, Judge.

Mr. James M. Parker, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Edward B. Beale and George R. Jones, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

In this suit under 35 U.S.C. 145, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in its refusal to grant appellant's application for a patent. The issues are fully described in an opinion by the District Court, 1957, 149 F.Supp. 279, and we find no basis for disturbing the conclusions reached therein.

¶2

Affirmed.

/252/f2d/861 · .json · Public domain