In re Hass’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.2d 122 · 1944
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Brenner v. Manson (1966), In re Petering (1962)
6 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
Relies on Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Thompson v. Boisselier · In re Hass · In re Lincoln · In re Swenson
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““7. The compound of plaintiffs’ claim 2 is the next adjacent homologue of the compound of said Bayer and Dahlen [prior art] patents. [An ethyl substituent on a ring where the references had methyl.] “8. The compound of plaintiffs’ claim 3 is the next adjacent homologue of the compound of plaintiffs’ claim 2 [ethyl in place of methyl as another ring substituent], ****** “11. The evidence produced at the trial proves that the compounds claimed by the plaintiffs possess some unobvious and unexpected beneficial properties not possessed by the homologous compound disclosed in the prior art defense patents.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to be patentable, novel members of a homologous series of [chemical] compounds must possess some unobvious or unexpected beneficial properties not possessed by a homologous compound disclosed in the prior art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Application of Henze
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.