Avery v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 1 state decisions

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]ppellant argues that there was no common subject matter between his application and that of MacClatchie in said interference, but that there was such common subject-matter between his application and that of Paterson et al., another party thereto; that the addition of said counts would have resulted only in a redeclaration of interference between appellant and the party Paterson et al., which would have resulted in no injury to Paterson et al. . . [I]f the matter was one which might have been determined in the first interference, the party having a right to have them [sic, it] so determined, who fails to do so, cannot afterward require their [sic, its] consideration. The rule prevails, irrespective of the number of parties in the original interference. In determining whether the same could have been so determined, the interference in fact depends chiefly upon the subject-matter disclosed, and not merely upon the language of the respective claims. . * # * Sfc sH % It may be stated that this rule works no hardship to him who is diligent in pursuit of his rights. When an interference is declared, the files of his contestants are open to him. He has full cognizance of their disclosures and claims. So advised, it becomes his duty to put forward every claim he has. Rule 109 6 affords him this opportunity. If the rule be not enforced or enforceable, then delays and litigation are greatly increased. It is quite obvious that the doctrine of estoppel . . results in the better conduc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Meitzner v. Mindick

2. ““Rule 116. The parties to an interference will be presumed to have made their inventions in the chronological order in which they filed their completed applications for patents cleariy disclosing same; and the burden of proof will rest upon the party who shall seek to establish a different state of facts. “The termination of the interference by dissolution under rule 122 without an award of priority shall not disturb this presumption, and a party enjoying the status of a senior party with respect to any subject-matter of his application shall not be deprived of any claim to such subject-matter solely on the ground that such claim was not added to the interference by-amendment under rule 109.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Prutton

3. “[T]his rule works no hardship to him who is diligent in pursuit of his rights. When an interference is declared, the files of his contestants are open to him. He has full cognizance of their disclosures and claims. So advised, it becomes his duty to put forward every claim he has. Rule 109 [ 8 ] affords him this opportunity. If the rule be not enforced or enforceable, then delays and litigation are greatly increased. It is quite obvious that the doctrine of estoppel, as applied in these cases, results in the better conduct of the business of the Patent Office and in the public good.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Baxter