In re Kauffman’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.2d 991 · 1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2013
3 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 In re Copeman · In re Cady · In re Isherwood · Otis Elevator Co. v. Portland Co. · Lion Fastener, Inc. v. Hookless Fastener Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * To justify the issuance of a second patent it must appear that the invention therein defined is inventive over that which in a claim has already been granted to the applicant in an issued patent. In re Copeman, 135 F.2d 349 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 962, and cases therein cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Levin
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.