From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jorgensen v. Henning

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D
Dec 1, 1948
81 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Mo. 1948)

Opinion

No. 4544.

December 1, 1948.

John H. Bruninga and John H. Sutherland, both of St. Louis, Mo., and Alex F. Baillo, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., and George R. Ericson and Bertram H. Mann, Jr., both of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.


This is a suit brought under Revised Statutes, § 4915, Title 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue a patent embodied in the claim, which was the subject matter of an interference proceeding before the Patent Office, to the General Motors Corporation, assignee of plaintiffs Clarence H. Jorgensen and Clarence H. Jorgensen, Administrator, pursuant to application No. 585,510 filed January 8, 1932.

For the purpose of trial this suit was consolidated with the case of Jorgensen et al. v. Ericson et al., D.C., 81 F. Supp. 614, in which a memorandum opinion has been filed this day. The facts and the law in the Ericson case are applicable to this case. The interference proceeding before the Patent Office was heard in this case and in the Ericson case at the same time and the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the patent in controversy are the same as in the Ericson case. It is so ordered.

The parties may submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance herewith.


Summaries of

Jorgensen v. Henning

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D
Dec 1, 1948
81 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Mo. 1948)
Case details for

Jorgensen v. Henning

Case Details

Full title:Clarence H. JORGENSEN, Clarence H. Jorgensen, Administrator, and General…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D

Date published: Dec 1, 1948

Citations

81 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Mo. 1948)

Citing Cases

Jorgensen v. Kingsland

Priority in this interference was awarded to Henning by the Board of Interference Examiners on October 31,…

Jorgensen v. Shaff

In view of our conclusion it is not necessary for us to discuss that motion. Counsel for appellant call our…