Watson v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
254 F.2d 342 · 1958
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently January 1997 · most notably TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc. (1984), Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp. (1974)
34 federal appellate · 11 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 Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · James Sackley Company v. United States · Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu · Egbert v. Lippmann
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . It may be fair to conclude that public use exists where the invention is used by, or exposed to, anyone other than the inventor or persons under an obligation of secrecy to the inventor.8”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“8. Use by persons under an obligation of secrecy to the inventor is probably not public use. See National Tube Co. v. Steel & Tubes, Inc., 3 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 52 . Cf. Journeaux, Public Use in Private or Vice Versa, 23 J. Pat.Off.Soc'y. 514 (1941), who states "With due caution it may be considered that an invention is in public use when it is used openly by the inventor for its intended purpose and also when it is used by anyone beyond the control of the inventor." . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe the protective umbrella of the experimental use doctrine should include reasonable disposal of models and prototypes of the invention once their usefulness to the inventor has ended--reasonable in view of the nature of the device and the probability of discovery and appropriation of the invention by strangers.”
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.