Dirkes v. Eitzen’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.2d 520 · 1939
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1967
1 district ·
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 United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Chapman v. Wintroath · Mason v. Hepburn · 28 App. D.C. 535 - Blackford v. Wilder · International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Coe
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The law on this subject was set out by this court in the case of In re Austin, 40 F.2d 756 , 759, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1202, 1209, as follows; * * * • it has long been the practice in the Patent Office to require a common assignee, if it desires to raise the issue of priority, to bring into an interference, to which it is a party, all of its applications, patents, and claims which it deems should be made the basis of interference between it and the other parties thereto. Ex parte Temple and Goodrum, decided November 11, 1911, 176 O.G. 526, 1912 C.D. 70; Frickey v. Ogden, 1914 C.D. 19, Vol. 199, O.G. 307. Furthermore, if a party to an interference fails to comply with the rules of the Patent Office relative to the presentation of such claims, it is thereafter estopped from presenting them as a basis for another interference between the same parties. Ex parte Temple and Goodrum, supra; Frickey v. Ogden, supra; New Departure Manufacturing Co. v. Robinson, 39 App.D.C. 504 ; In re Capen, 43 App.D.C. 342 ; In re Wasserfallen, 54 App.D.C. 367 , 298 F. 826 , 828; Application of Doble, 57 App.D.C. 10 , 16 F.2d 350 .’ * * *» (italics added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henning v. Hunt
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.