McBride v. Teeple’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.2d 789 · 1940
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016
1 federal appellate · 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 Mason v. Hepburn · Fessenden v. Wilson · Conover v. Downs · Robins v. Wettlaufer · Hoopes Bros. & Thomas Co. v. Trower
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * In the latter case the very question before us • was directly involved, and after reviewing a number of precedents upon the question we held that where an application involved in an interference was not filed until after the grant of a patent disclosing but not claiming the invention, the filing of the application which matured into a patent was not a constructive reduction to practice of the invention in issue. The situation before us is exactly that which existed in the Conover case, and it is clear that we could not agree with appellant’s contention without overruling our holding in said case. We adhere to the views there expressed and would observe that we have expressly affirmed this holding in the following cases: Fessenden v. Wilson et al., 48 F.2d 422 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1171; Writer v. Kiwad, 63 F.2d 259 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 869; and Euth v. Oliver, 70 F.2d 110 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1027. . “This question has been so thoroughly considered by us in the cited cases that we do not consider it open to further discussion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kear v. Roder“nothing is better settled in patent law than that in interference cases express limitations in counts may not be ignored.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hitzeman v. Rutter
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.