U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Interchemical Corporation v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 16, 1958 · Prettyman, Miller, Bazelon

251 F.2d 390; 116 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 119; 102 U.S. App. D.C. 149; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5898 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Ralph M. Watson, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John H. Pickering, Washington, D. C., was 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.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

John F. Cody v. Aktiebolaget Flymo (D.C. Cir. 1972)
The Bendix Corporation v. Balax, Inc. (7th Cir. 1970)
Bendix Corp. v. Balax, Inc. (7th Cir. 1970)
Chemithon Corporation v. Procter & Gamble Company (District Court, D. Maryland 1968)
Broussard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1966)
Leathem S. Stearn v. Superior Distributing Company, Aggressive Yacht Sales Co. (6th Cir. 1982)
Armour and Company v. Wilson & Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1958)

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the dismissal of appellant’s suit to obtain a patent relating to the “pigment-decoration of textiles.” The primary question was whether the use of an unmasticated rubbery copolymer was inherent in the applicant’s specification. If it was not, then a proffered amendment to describe the rubbery copolymer as unmasticated would be barred as introducing new matter into the claims. The question is obviously one that the trier of the facts must determine from the testimony of experts. This is what the court did here and we cannot say its determination is clearly erroneous. Since we also find appellant’s other contentions without merit, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

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