Walter H. Wirkler v. Corles M. Perkins and Alfred Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
245 F.2d 502 · 1957
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1985 · most notably Brenner v. Manson (1966), Samuel P. McCutchen Jr., and Jack E. Eskilson v. Francis A. Oliver (1966)
1 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
Relies on Malm v. Schneider · Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer · Malm v. Schneider
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the board of patent interferences on the question of priority, may have remedy by civil action, if .commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints or as provided in section 141 of this title, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and such appeal is pending or has been decided. In such suits the record in the Patent Office shall be admitted on motion of either party upon the terms and conditions as to costs, expenses, and the further cross-examination of the witnesses as the court imposes, without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony. The testimony and exhibits of the record in the Patent Office when admitted shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in the suit. “Such suit may be instituted against the party in interest as shown by the records of the Patent Office at the time of the decision complained of, but any party in interest may become a party to the action. If there be adverse jjarties residing in a plurality of districts not embraced within the same state, or an adverse party residing in a foreign country, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and may issue summons against the adverse parties directed to the marshal of any district in which any adverse party resides. Summons against adverse parties residing in fo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The law is well settled that once an applicant has selected language which is somewhat broad in its scope, he runs the risk that others with specifically different structures may be able to meet the language selected, and he will not be allowed to urge later that the language which he has selected should only be read in the light of his disclosure merely because it originated with him. Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer, 104 F.2d 791 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents 1436, 1441 [1939],”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fontijn v. Okamoto
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.