Frederick F. Glass v. William C. De Roo’s Empirical Analysis
239 F.2d 402 · 1956
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1991 · most notably Brenner v. Manson (1966), Case v. CPC International, Inc. (1984)
3 federal appellate · 3 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 35 U.S.C. § 135 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on Hill v. Wooster · Hoover Co. v. Coe · Sanford v. Kepner · Gowen v. Hendry
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * -* * A party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the board of patent interferences on the question of priority may appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To allow this new issue to be injected into the case under these circumstances would be an invitation for litigants to raise the issue of “operativeness” anew in every case where a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences. It would encourage parties to trade on the “ignorance” of the court in complicated technical matters with the hope that a judge, untrained in the intricacies of technology, might find inadequate disclosure of inoperativeness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our jurisdiction in a patent interference is limited to a review of the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences, 35 U.S.C. § 141 . The jurisdiction of that board is limited to a determination of the question of priority of invention, 35 U.S.C. § 135 . As to both the board and this court, certain questions which are “ancillary” to priority may also be considered. Patent-ability is not one of these questions. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision 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.