In re Woodsome’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.2d 1003 · 1926
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 1961
5 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In re Isherwood · Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros. · Otis Elevator Co. v. Portland Co. · Morse Chain Co. v. Link Belt Machinery Co. · Gold v. Gold
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with the lower tribunals that there was but a single inventive idea, and that it was embodied in a single structure, and accordingly that the applicants are not entitled to extend the period of their patent upon the invention on the ground of a mere difference in the scope of the claims contained in the two applications. Fassett v. Ewart Mfg. Co., 62 F. 404 , 10 C. C. A. 441 ; Otis Elevator Co. v. Portland Co., 127 F. 557 , 62 C. C. A. 339 '; Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros. Typewriter Co. (C. C.) 173 F. 288 ; Morse Chain Co. v. Link Belt Machinery Co., 164 F. 333 , 90 C. C. A. 650 ; Gold v. Gold, 187 F. 273 , 109 C. C. A. 615 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Laughlin
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.