Thompson v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.2d 443 · 1948
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2019
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Gowen v. Hendry · Beidler v. Caps · Petersen v. Thomas · Fageol v. Midboe · Smith v. Nevin
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] Counsel for appellee [Dunn] argue that as appellant [Thompson] considered the machine built by his associate McGihon to embody the best form of his invention and that, since appellant did not disclose that machine in his application, he has not complied with Sec. 4888, R.S. (U.S.C., title 35, sec. 33) which requires that an inventor shall disclose “the best mode in which he has contemplated applying” the principle of his invention. That argument does not relate to priority of invention, but merely to appellant’s right to obtain a patent. [Fritz’s emphasis.] Accordingly, it cannot properly be considered by this court in an interference proceeding. [ 35 CCPA at 964 , 166 F.2d at 447-48 , 77 USPQ at 53.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weil v. Fritz
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.