Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.2d 482 - In re Krueger

In re Krueger’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.2d 482 · 1953

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
March 1982
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1982

401953196019701980decided

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. § 171

Relies on Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co. · In re Jennings · Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co. · In re Bigelow · In re Bigelow

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

  1. ““One purpose Congress had in mind in the enactment of the statute authorizing the grant of a patent on any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture was to enhance the salability of such articles in competitive markets through an aesthetic appeal to the purchasing public. * * * It is a law which requires meticulous care in its administration to avoid infringement and prevent great harm to legitimate industry ^”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 171. Patents for designs Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Reverence patents, granted for utility or for designs, may be combined in the proper rejection of the claim for a design patent. It is not necessary, as appellant suggests here, that the rejection must be confined to a single reference, substantially disclosing the design of the appealed claim.”
    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.