Matter of the Application of Paulsen Spence’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1981
1 district · 1 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.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The invention disclosed in a patent is presumed to be operative because the patent enjoys a statutory presumption of validity, 35 U.S.C. § 282 , and operativeness is a prerequisite to validity, 35 U.S.C. § 101 . An inoperative device lacks the utility which is required by statute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.