Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Ooms
EDWIN L. WIEGAND COMPANY v. Casper W. OOMS, Commissioner of Patents
Edwin L. Wiegand Co. v. Ooms, 158 F.2d 549 (D.C. Cir. 1946)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
It seems to us that the evidence affords a rational basis for the decision of the District Court which upheld the action of the Patent Office. Consequently we think the judgment of the District Court is correct.
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 ⓘ
- United States v. The Honorable June L
- United States v. Donald Wallace Perkins, United States of America v. Gerald Leonard Whitmore
- United States v. Winston
- United States v. Bessie
- John R. Frost v. Leon R. Yankwich, Chief Judge, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division
Most recent
- United States v. The Honorable June L
- United States v. Donald Wallace Perkins, United States of America v. Gerald Leonard Whitmore
- United States v. Winston
- John R. Frost v. Leon R. Yankwich, Chief Judge, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division
- United States v. Bessie
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.