Berlin Mills Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
Citations
- 254 U.S. 156
- 41 S. Ct. 75
- 65 L. Ed. 196
- 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1179
Syllabus
<p>Patent No. 1,135,351, issued April 13, 1915, to Procter & Gamble Company, as assignee of John J. Burchenal, is void for lack of invention as to claims 1 and 2, claiming, respectively, a homogeneous lard-like food product consisting of incompletely hydrogenized vegetable oil, and a like product consisting of incompletely hydrogenized cottonseed oil. Pp. 161, 164.</p> <p>The process of changing vegetable oil into a homogeneous, semisolid, edible substance, by acting upon it with hydrogen in the presence of nickel, was known and open to general use, and its application to the manufacture of the food products here in question was such a step as would occur to persons skilled in the art, without . the exercise of invention. P. 165.</p> <p>256 Fed. Rep. 23, reversed.</p>
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of AmericaS.D. New York· 1931-09-14· cited 32×
- Katz v. Horni Signal Mfg. CorporationSecond Circuit· 1944-12-20· cited 24×
- L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. CoeD.C. Circuit· 1939-03-20· cited 21×
- Tropic-Aire, Inc. v. Cullen-Thompson Motor Co.Tenth Circuit· 1939-11-06· cited 15×
- Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.D. Massachusetts· 1989-01-31· cited 10×
- Frederick Stearns & Co. v. Grove's Laboratories, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1937-02-03· cited 10×
- Mead Johnson & Co. v. Hillman's, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1943-05-21· cited 8×
- Bennett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1921-06-25· cited 8×
- Haggerty v. Rawlings Mfg. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1926-09-25· cited 7×
- Moore v. Baltimore & O. R.Fourth Circuit· 1930-01-14· cited 7×
- De Cew v. Union Bag & Paper CorporationD. New Jersey· 1944-08-16· cited 6×
- Morrison v. CoeD.C. Circuit· 1941-10-06· cited 6×
- Miller v. Life Savers, Inc.Second Circuit· 1933-01-09· cited 5×
- Maccarone v. Pincus & Tobias, Inc.E.D. New York· 1935-04-22· cited 5×
- Richardson Co. v. Hood Rubber Co.First Circuit· 1927-11-19· cited 4×
- Sbicca-Method Shoes, Inc. v. M. Wolf & Sons, Inc.E.D. New York· 1935-04-22· cited 4×
- Douglas Pectin Corp. v. Armour & Co.W.D. New York· 1926-07-20· cited 2×
- Ashcraft v. National Theatre Supply Co.Fourth Circuit· 1940-01-09· cited 2×
- Straub v. CoeD.C. Circuit· 1943-06-30· cited 1×
- Treat v. Redtop Electric Co.Second Circuit· 1921-02-09
Other cases named Berlin Mills Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.