Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. Fenn’s Empirical Analysis
277 F.2d 935 · 1960
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably Paulik v. Rizkalla (1985), Farrand Optical Co. v. United States (1963)
5 federal appellate · 3 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 Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady · Hildreth v. Mastoras · Field v. Knowles · Radio Corp. of America v. International Standard Electric Corp.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * we do not believe that an actual reduction to practice necessarily requires the making of a commercially acceptable embodiment * * * Tansel v. Higonnet [et al.], 215 F.2d 457 , 42 CCPA 732 * *, if the testing of it shows that it will perform its intended function. The amount of testing necessary depends upon the facts of the particular case, Lustig v. Legat, 154 F.2d 680, 33 CCPA 991 * * *. 59 * * * * * * 60 "* * * we know of no precedent which requires that proven methods of mass producing a device must exist before a reduction to practice is established. On the contrary, we believe the law to be that reduction to practice is proved when there is corroborated testimony that the device actually performed the function for which it was designed, * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * we do not believe that an actual reduction to practice necessarily requires the making of a commercially acceptable embodiment * * * Tansel v. Higonnet [et al.], 215 F.2d 457 , 42 CCPA 732 * *, if the testing of it shows that it will perform its intended function. The amount of testing necessary depends upon the facts of the particular case, Lustig v. Legat, 154 F.2d 680, 33 CCPA 991 * * *. 59 * * * * * * 60”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“With respect to the issue of the device being an abandoned experiment, once reduction to practice has been found that question no longer exists.... Therefore evidence of subsequent experimenting and testing is without probative value.”
1 later decision 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.