Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 CTCL 237 - Technical Development Corp. v. United States

Technical Development Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
March 2006
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2006

401973198019902000decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1498

Relies on Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. United States · William C. Elmore v. William F. Schmitt · Armstrong Cork Company v. John T. Lyons and Ruth E. Lyons, Co-Partners Doing Business as Lyons Utility Company · John O. Paivinen v. Eugene A. Sands · Farrand Optical Co. v. United States

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

  1. “* * * Procurement and Testing of Five (5) Thompson-Offner Turbo-Jet Engine Controls.” The proposal noted that”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “4. The parties agree that if any of claims 3 to 5 of Reissue Patent No. 24,809 are held to be valid and infringed by the Court (as distinguished from the Commissioner) there will be no further trial proceedings irrespective of how the Court (as distinguished from the Commissioner) rules with respect to claims 11 and 35 of Patent No. 2,697,908. 5. If all of claims 3 to 5 of Reissue Patent No. 24,809 are held to be invalid or non-infringed, then the parties further agree that the trial will be resumed with respect to all claims involved in suit with respect to claims 2, 9, 19 and 25 of Reissue Patent No. 24,809, and claims 1 and 10 of Patent No. 2,697,908.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An invention is conceived, within the meaning of the patent law, when the inventor has a definite idea of a complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be reduced to practice. * * * Technical Development Corp. v. United States, 202 Ct.Cl. at 308, finding No. 53.”
    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.