1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 81 F.Supp.
  5. 81 F.Supp. 913 (1948)
 

HESTON v. KUHLKE

Civ. A. No. 22159.

81 F.Supp. 913 (1948)

HESTON et al. v. KUHLKE et al.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled January 27, 1949.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lisle M. Buckingham and J. C. Frank, both of Akron, Ohio, and Oscar C. Limbach, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs.

A. L. Ely and Wise, Roetzel & Maxon, all of Akron, Ohio, for defendants Otto J. Kuhlke, Leslie E. Soderquist, McNeil Machine and Engineering Co. and James W. Brundage.

Bates, Teare & McBean, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants William J. Carter and Akron Standard Mold Co.

WILKIN, District Judge.

This action was brought under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, Section 63 of Title 35 U.S.C.A. The Complaint alleges that the plaintiff Heston was party to four interference proceedings in the United States Patent Office, Nos. 78936, 78937, 77479, and 78938, involving means and methods of removing tires from vulcanizing molds, and that he had been denied a patent. The case was submitted upon the record of the decisions of the Board of...

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