Den Beste v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.2d 302 · 1958
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 1977 · most notably George E. Hall, Jr. v. Louis B. Taylor (1964), Loukomsky v. Gerlich (1959)
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 Stern v. Schroeder · Kyrides v. Andersen · Trumbull v. Kirschbraun · Lawson v. Bruce
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that one is entitled to rely on an application which supports the counts in issue in such manner as to constitute a constructive reduction to practice of the invention defined therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * the question as to whether the disclosure of an application is broad enough to support a generic claim is one which relates only to the patentability of that count in the application, and is not ancillary to the issue of priority. So far as priority is concerned, it is sufficient if the application discloses a single species, example or embodiment which clearly meets all the requirements of the count. Appellant argues that the Board of Patent Interferences erred in failing to give effect to “the law requiring literal and exact support of all limitations of an interference count by the party to whom priority is awarded.” However, the disclosure of a single species or example clearly falling within the count constitutes a support of all its limitations, so far as the issue of priority is concerned. Manifestly, if Martin reduced to practice one example satisfying the count before Den Beste entered the field, Den Beste cannot be the first inventor of a broad claim embracing that example. If Martin failed to recognize that his example formed part of a broader invention, that fact might preclude him from obtaining broad claims, but it could not constitute Den Beste the first inventor of any claim reading on the said example. [ 252 F.2d at 305 , 45 CCPA at 802 ,116 USPQ at 586, emphasis ours.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Squires v. Corbett
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.