In re Frey’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.2d 184 · 1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2006
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 Chapman v. Beede · Conover v. Downs · Cryns v. Musher · Jenks v. Knight · Thompson v. Hamilton
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * in the use of the word `covering' in the case of Cryns v. Musher, supra [ 161 F.2d 217 , 34 C. C.P.A., Patents, 963], there was no intention to hold that a broad claim which merely covers the invention of a patent claim is a claim to substantially the same invention as the patent claim so as to avoid estoppel. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n applicant for patent — if he had claims within the critical period to the same or substantially the same subject matter as appears in a patent ... is not barred from copying claims from the patent [after the critical date.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.