Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves’s Empirical Analysis
241 F.2d 718 · 1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably Fujikawa v. Wattanasin (1996), Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. Shabica (1960)
3 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp. · Mason v. Hepburn · Application of Bremner · Henry St. Pierre v. Draper M. Harvey, Draper M. Harvey v. Henry St. Pierre
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * A composition of matter cannot be a patentable invention unless it has utility. * * * Accordingly, the invention of such a composition is not complete unless its utility is either obvious or is established by proper tests, regardless of whether the claims contain any specific reference to utility. 25 * * * * * * 26 "As noted above, neither of the counts specifies any use for the claimed compounds. While that fact alone does not eliminate the necessity of showing that the compounds have some utility, it does have a bearing on the kind of utility which must be shown. It has been held that where an interference count does not specify any particular use, evidence proving substantial utility for any purpose is sufficient to establish reduction to practice. * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In its decision, the board stated that ‘The only field of utility here disclosed is human therapy.’ In our opinion, that conclusion is not supported by the facts of record. It is apparently based on the testimony taken on behalf of Blicke which indicates an intention to use the compounds defined in the counts in human therapy if they were shown to be satisfactory for that purpose. However, the facts are that neither the Blicke application nor the Treves patents make any mention of human therapy. The application merely states that the compounds described ‘are useful in the form of their water-soluble non-toxic salts as antispasmodic agents,’ while each of the patents describes the compounds as ‘having mydriatic activity’ and as being ‘further valuable as antispasmodics.' Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1949, defines ‘antispasmodie’ as ‘having a sedative effect on the nervous system; preventing or allaying spasms or convulsions.’ The same authority defines ‘mydriatic’ as ‘causing dilation of the pupil.’ Neither definition is limited in terms to therapy or to effects on human beings as distinguished from other animals. * * * * * * “We are of the opinion that the record amply establishes tests by or on behalf of Blicke prior to either of the record dates to which Treves is restricted. Those tests were of such a nature as to prove that the compounds in issue had a definite antispasmodic effect upon animals and were not seriously toxic, and we conclude those tests are suff”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Archer v. Papa
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.