ISETT v. ROWE

No. 990.

30 F.Supp. 66 (1939)

ISETT et al. v. ROWE et al.

District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.

July 1, 1939.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Murray, Sackhoff & Paddack, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Banning & Banning, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

A. Trevor Jones, of Chicago, Ill., and Charles K. Bradley, of Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.


DRUFFEL, District Judge.

After careful consideration of the evidence, including the prior art, together with the authorities submitted by counsel, this court is of opinion and finds as a matter of fact:

(1) That Isett patent No. 1,957,596 is invalid by reason of proven publication of description of method claimed therein more than two years prior to filing date.

(2) That Isett patent No. 2,039,420 is invalid for the reason that Isett was not the original...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases