Vanore v. Improta’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.2d 918 · 1928
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1949
8 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 Mason v. Hepburn · 13 App. D.C. 111 - Warner v. Smith · 18 App. D.C. 142 - Howard v. Hey · 23 App. D.C. 69 - Quist v. Ostrom
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As against the inventor who is guilty of. inexcusable delay in asserting his priority according to law, all the equities and presumptions are in favor of the inventor who, though later in conception, first files his application for a patent. An inventor may have a reasonable excuse for not promptly applying for a patent; but, if he has none, and unreasonably delays in taking the necessary steps to secure a patent, the courts are warranted in presuming that his claim of reduction to practice was nothing better than an abandoned experiment. Mason v. Hep-burn, 13 App. D. C. 86 , 94, 95. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hedenskoog v. Backus
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.