Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents
HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., Et Al., Appellants, v. David L. LADD, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee
Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252 (1965). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.