U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1943

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Coe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 14, 1943 · During, Edgerton, From, Miller, Vinson, When

135 F.2d 836; 58 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 380; 78 U.S. App. D.C. 403; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3430 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Daniel I. Mayne, of Rochester, N. Y., with whom Messrs. Clarence M. Fisher, of Washington, D. C., and Newton M. Perrins, of Rochester, N. Y., were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Clarence W. Moore, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Marzall (D.C. Cir. 1952)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, the District Court correctly found that appellant was not entitled to a patent upon the claims in issue in this case, in view of the prior art. The Patent Office recognized the patentability of the process claims, the operative character of which has made the disputed compounds commercially available. But that the compounds themselves, and their usefulness for the purposes claimed by appellant, had been disclosed by the references upon which the Patent Office and the Court relied, there is no doubt.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice VINSON sat during the argument of this case; concurred in the result when it was considered in conference, but resigned from the Court before the opinion was prepared.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.