Podlesak v. McInnerney’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1998 · most notably Smith v. Wehn (1963), United States ex. rel. Lowry & Planters Compress Co. v. Allen (1906)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
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 Seeberger v. Dodge · 14 App. D.C. 137 - Winslow v. Austin · Tracy v. Leslie · Garrels v. Freeman · 15 App. D.C. 21 - Ruete v. Elwell
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of the right of a party to make a claim goes to the very foundation of an interference, for, if a party has not such right, the interference falls. If it be incorrectly held that such party has a right to make the claim, priority may be awarded to him, and his adversary be deprived of a substantial right in that he is not given a claim where he necessarily is the prior inventor, his adversary never having made the invention. Manifestly that question should not be finally determined by the primary examiner who originally declared the interference. We therefore take the jurisdiction to determine that question in this case as an ancillary question to be considered in awarding priority of invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * We do not mean to hold that the appellants’ claim, whicli lias been' held patentable, is not patentable as read in the light of their specification. If, as we think, the claim, read in the light of their specification, means one thing, and the same claim, read in the light of appellee’s specification, means another, the same phraseology should not be employed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Babcock““While we many times have ruled that a party will not be permitted to narrow his claims to suit the exigencies of a given situation, it is equally well settled that the meaning given to the counts of an interference, must be that disclosed in the specification of the party first to make the claim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cox v. Headley
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.