In re Fischel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We think the true doctrine of election in patent cases is grounded upon one or more of three fundamental propositions. First, the application of the doctrine prevents two patents being issued for the same invention. Second, it prevents an avoidance of the determination of priority. Third, it prevents an extension of the monopoly. ****** “We think the second ground— avoidance of the determination of priority — is applicable in the instant case in determining the correctness of applying the doctrine of election. Appellants’ assignee, by taking out the broad claims to the invention in the patent, conceded priority of invention therein disclosed to Fischel and Thiry. Having made such con- it cannot now have a valid , Pat«nt containing the same subject-matter in another application, * * * * * * “In concluding that appellants are bound by their assignee’s election * * * we are influenced by a consideration of the fact that the assignee’s conduct conceded priority of invention to Fischel and Thiry.” [Emphasis mine.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hession · In re Bass

2. ““It will be noticed that all three of the above cases were based upon the doctrine of election and that said doctrine in those eases was said to involve the question of extension of the monopoly. [Emphasis in original.] ■**#**•» “Appellants’ contention with regard to claims 7 and 8 being void ab initio makes it necessary for us to consider whether or not there would be an extension of the monop oly, under the facts disclosed by the instant record, by allowance of the appealed claims. * * * <(T , j- In concluding that appellants are bound by their assignee’s election to take out the broad claims 7 and 8 in the Fischel and Thiry patent under the circumstances stated and are now barred from claiming in the instant application the same * * * subject-matter * * *, we are influenced by a consideration of the fact that * * * to allow the instant claims would be to extend the monopoly which the assignee has enjoyed in the subject-matter embraced in said claims 7 and 8 in the Fischel and Thiry patent, regardless of the said admitted invalidity. [My emphasis.] ,, „ # # “We * * * conclude * * * , . „ , , . . that to allow the instant claims would be an extension of monopoly.” [ y emp asís.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hession · Application of John W. Hession, Jr

3. “. _ In ^e instant case our conclusloa 18 that tke Proper basis for the application of the doctrine of electÍOn by the C°mm°n assi®nee of two applications, to wit: extension of monopoly and concession of priority, appears from the instant facts and requires the application of the doctrine.” [Emphasis mine.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Hession · Application of John W. Hession, Jr