Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 F.2d 1016 - In re Kaase

In re Kaase’s Empirical Analysis

140 F.2d 1016 · 1944

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
February 1955
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on In re Steenbock · Kyrides v. Andersen · In re Soll · In re Langmuir · In re Walker

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

  1. ““What appellants are here seeking is to regain what they lost in interference No. 76,387. In the patent issued to Hanford and Holmes as a result of the decision in that interference, the public is taught that isothiocyanates may be used in the involved process. “Now appellants seek to dominate the patent to Hanford and Holmes by claiming as an element of their process the use of isothiocyanates, although it has been determined that appellants were not the first inventors of such use.””
    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.