Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. John Sedlacsik, Jr., & Interplanetary Rsch. & Dev. Corp, 397 F.2d 804 (3rd Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. v. John Sedlacsik, Jr., & Interplanetary Rsch. & Dev. Corp, 397 F.2d 804 (3rd Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Newcombe v. Commissioner (tax, 1970-06-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newcombe v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1970 · confidence medium
But our statement in that case that the issue was a “question” of “law” is belied by the affirmance by the Ninth Circuit on the ground that “we are not persuaded that the Tax Court’s factual finding and its consequent conclusions are clearly wrong” and the statement that “the Government makes a strong case for reversal.” See 397 F. 2d at 804.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RANSBURG ELECTRO-COATING CORP., Appellant,
v.
John SEDLACSIK, Jr., and Interplanetary Research & Development Corp.
17048.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jul 5, 1968.
397 F.2d 804
Richard R. Trexler, Olson, Trexler, Wolters & Bushnell, Chicago, 111. (Frank C. O’Brien and Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant., Edward F. Levy, New York City, for appellees.
McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this civil action brought pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.A. § 146 for determination of priority of invention, the District Court, to which trial was had, affirmed the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences on its finding that the plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proof to establish “a thorough conviction that a mistake had been made” by the Board. Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 14 S.Ct. 772, 38 L.Ed. 657 (1894); Radio Corporation of America v. International Standard Electric Corporation, 232 F.2d 726 (3 Cir. 1956).

On review of the record we cannot say that the District Court’s finding was “clearly erroneous” under Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., and accordingly the Order of the District Court will be affirmed.