Borkland v. Pedersen’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. · Grinnell Washing Mach Co v. E E Johnson Co · Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The record in this case makes it clear that Borkland by his work on the processes set forth in the two patents here involved has not made any contribution to the art of forming articles from plastic sheet material. Borkland Patent No. 2,357,806 and Re. 23,171 are invalid and void because they disclose no invention not theretofore known and patented.” (Our emphasis.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.