In re Oberweger’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.2d 826 · 1940
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 1999 · most notably E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co. (1980), Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. Shabica (1960)
4 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Coupe v. Royer · In re Perrigo · Lamb Knit Goods Co. v. Lamb Glove & Mitten Co. · Besser v. Merrilat Culvert Core Co. · In re Holmes
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.
“Neither the Patent Office tribunals nor the court may properly grant patents upon a mere possibility that a device might do the things claimed for it and be useful. There must be definiteness. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes contemplate the granting of patents upon theories, nor giving a monopoly upon intellectual speculations embodied in devices incapable of scientific analysis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“concoction * * * belongs to a class of compositions which from common knowledge has long been the subject matter of much humbuggery and fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.