Vandenberg v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis
268 F.2d 744 · 1959
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 1981 · most notably Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss (1971), Frilette v. Kimberlin (1969)
2 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 Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. Reynolds · Smith v. Swaine · Brooker v. Riester · Smith v. Swaine
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * we are asked to proceed on the assumption that it was `very probably PCH.' We cannot, however, accept mere probability or likelihood as proof of an actual reduction to practice. 47 "What Vandenberg used as a catalyst, therefore, giving him the benefit of every doubt and accepting his contentions, many of which are strongly contested, was the product of the oxidation of phenylcyclohexane, 69.9% of which was unreacted pure phenylcyclohexane, 56% of the remainder being the compound called for by the count and 44% of the remainder being admittedly unknown but possibly other phenylcyclohexyl hydroperoxides not conforming to the count. Thus the proofs are, at best, that 16.8% (56% of 30.1%) of Vandenberg's `catalyst composition' was PCH. This is the reality of the situation behind Vandenberg's oft reiterated statement that the June, 1949, tests were made `using PCH as catalyst.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We entirely agree. Yandenberg has not sustained his burden of proof. It may very well be that PCH was in fact acting as the catalyst, to the exclusion of anything else in the composition, whatever it contained, but the proofs have not established that with the degree of certainty required in cases of this kind. * * * ****** The material being tested as a catalyst here was not PCH. While it may have been present, it cannot have been known with a reasonable degree of certainty that it was responsible for whatever catalysis was produced (and we have assumed, arguendo, that there was such) considering the other possible catalysts which might have been present in the mixture. It was incumbent on Vandenberg to eliminate such other possibilities in order to establish the effectiveness of PCH as a catalyst.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clauss v. Foulke“No competent evidence by Vandenberg has been adduced to satisfactorily establish that the particular hydroper-oxide, the inventive feature of the count, was the polymerization catalyst, bearing in mind that it was the entire liquid reaction mass which was used as the catalyst, and that four hydro-peroxides of phenyl cyclohexane are theoretically possible. No evidence whatsoever has been introduced to demonstrate that other than the catalyst liquid reaction mass as a whole promoted the superior results stated to have been obtained by PCH.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clauss v. Foulke
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.