HAMILTON

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 456 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1972)
  …d on ‘clear, unequivocal and convincing’ evidence. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co, 167 U.S. 224, 251, 17 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed. 144 (1897).” Scott Paper Company v. Fort Howard Paper Company, 432 F. 2d 1198, 1204 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 913, 91 S.Ct. 882, 27 L. Ed.2d 812 (1971). See too McCullough Tool Company v. Well Surveys, Inc, 343 F. 2d 381, 394 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. den. 383 U.S. 933, 86 S.Ct. 1061, 15 L.Ed.2d 851 (1966), rehearing den. 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1452, 16 L.Ed.2d 5…
• Application of Leland C. Clark, Jr., 522 F.2d 623 (C.C.P.A. 1975)
  …n ‘honest mistake in judgment.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)4 [*631] Such findings are most persuasive that appellant’s errors occurred without any deceptive intention. See Scott Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 432 F. 2d 1198 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 913, 91 S.Ct. 882, 27 L.Ed.2d 812 (1970). The majority says that an applicant cannot wait until he finds out that his actions have invalidated his patent before applying for reissue. However, before the patent was declared invalid, appellant was unawar…
• Norton Co. v. Carborundum Co., 530 F.2d 435 (1st Cir. 1976)
  …erance of the evidence which leaves the issue in doubt. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224, 251, 17 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed. 144 (1897); Scott Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 432 F. 2d 1198, 1204 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 913, 91 S.Ct. 882, 27 L.Ed.2d 812 (1971); Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Co., 169 F.Supp. 1, 25 (E.D. Pa.1958), aff’d, 268 F. 2d 395 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 894, 80 S.Ct. 190, 4 L.Ed.2d 151 (1959). The district court…