Baldwin-Southwark Corp. v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.2d 359 · 1942
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 1984
11 federal appellate · 5 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 Seymour v. Osborne · Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co. · Becket v. Coe · Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. George A. Breon & Co.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Patented inventions cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind, though of prior date, unless the description and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, to make, construct and practice the invention to the same practical extent as they would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent. Mere vague and general representations will not support such a defence, as the knowledge supposed to be derived from the publication must be sufficient to enable those skilled in the art or science to understand the nature and operation of the invention, and to carry it into practical use. Whatever may be the particular circumstances under which the publication takes place, the account published, to be of any effect to support such a defence, must be on account of a complete and operative invention capable of being put into practical operation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brock v. Brown“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— •Jr -Jr •X* ■X’ ■$£ (b) the invention was patented or described in a, printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States * * *. [Emphasis supplied.]”
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.