Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 F.2d 951 - In re Kebrich

In re Kebrich’s Empirical Analysis

201 F.2d 951 · 1953

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
July 2015
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Jp Stevens Co Inc v. Lex Tex Ltd Inc (1984), In re Prater (1969)

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2401953196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 31

Relies on In re Von Bramer · In re Williams · In re Crosley · In re Marden

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Furthermore, this court is committed to the doctrine that where a product is clearly disclosed in a publication, the operativeness of any of the processes by which it is claimed the product could be produced is immaterial, and that the disclosure of the composition is sufficient to anticipate a claim therefor.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whatever may be the practice of the courts in the interpretation of claims in infringement proceedings in order to sustain patents once granted, it is very definitely settled by a line of consistent decisions rendered during a long period of time that in the initial consideration of the question of patent-ability neither the tribunals of the Patent Office nor the courts in reviewing their action may properly read unexpressed limitations into claims, and it is equally as well settled that, so limited, the tribunals and the reviewing courts in the initial consideration of patentability will give claims the broadest interpretation which, within reason, may be applied.”
    2 later decisions 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.