Conservolite, Inc. v. Widmayer’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 1098 · 1994
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Ching-Rong Wang (2000), Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A. (1997)
12 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 135 · 35 U.S.C. § 144 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 146
Relies on Jones v. Howard · Cashell v. United States · Reed v. United States · Price v. Symsek · Case v. CPC International, Inc.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Cjourts have considered whether there was suppression, bad faith, or gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff in failing to raise an issue before the Board; whether the evidence was then reasonably available; and whether the issue has been or may be more conveniently and expeditiously raised in another judicial proceeding. See Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A., 540 F.2d 611, 617 , 191 USPQ 657, 661 (3d Cir.1976). Other courts have applied a test of due diligence in identifying and procuring evidence, whether or not the failure to identify or procure the evidence was attended by bad faith motives or for tactical reasons. See Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 579 F.2d 1038, 1046 , 198 USPQ 584, 591 (7th Cir.1978). Examples of appropriate circumstances have been said to include an intervening change in the law, the presence of a new issue, or the admission of other new evidence deserving of a response or further elaboration. Id. at 1046 n. 10, 579 F.2d 1038 , 198 USPQ at 591 n. 10.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on the interference, may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“An issue may not be appealed under § 146 unless the issue was decided by the Board or raised by the parties during the proceedings below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.