Normann v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. ““It would be most extraordinary if a party should be considered to have filed an application for a specific invention in a a foreign country on the date of filing an application which did not disclose that invention, and it is inconceivable that Congress so intended. ****** “The case of In re Bastían, supra, does sustain appellants’ contention in that the provisional specification there involved did not disclose the invention patented, and described in the completed specification; but nevertheless the court held that the date of the patentee’s provisional specification should be regarded as the date of his application for the patent issued upon the completed specification. “In so far as the last-cited case is concerned, we are not in agreement therewith. Cases to the contrary are American Stainless Steel Co. v. Rustless Iron Corporation, D.C. 2 F.Supp. 742 ; Handley Page, Ltd., v. Leech Aircraft, Inc., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 856 ; and Woburn Degreasing Co. v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 357 . * * * * * # “As 'hereinbefore indicated, we are in accord with the holding of the Patent Office tribunals that the date of appellee’s first British provisional specification, viz., March 1, 1930, should not be regarded as the date of appellee’s British application for the involved invention for the reason that said provisional specification did not disclose it, and that the date of his second provisional specification, filed June 25, 1930, which did disclose the invention, should ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Crouch