In re Hass’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.2d 127 · 1944
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1968
1 federal appellate ·
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 Von Bramer · In re Lincoln
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.
“«* * * por (.jjg reasons stated in our decision in that case, we are of opinion that the tribunals of the Patent Office were right in holding that, in order to be patentable, novel members of a homologous series of compounds must possess some unobvious or unexpected beneficial properties not possessed by homologous compounds disclosed in the prior art. “Whether novel chemical compounds are patentable over prior art isomers and homologues, is a question to be determined in each case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Finley · 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.