In re Dunbar’s Empirical Analysis
278 F. 334 · 1922
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 1973 · most notably In re Bass (1973), Gowen v. Hendry (1930)
3 federal appellate · 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.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where two applicants each assigned their eopending applications to the same assignee by an assignment which left no interest in the applicant, the election of the assignee to take the patent on one application, which contained narrow claims reading on the disclosure in the other application, is binding on him, and precludes his right to issuance of patent on/the other application, containing broader claims covering the same features.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gowen v. Hendry““By taking out the Dyson patent, an election was made on the question of priority between Dyson and Dunbar, and the common assignee is just as much bound by that election as if an interference had been declared and priority decided in favor of Dyson.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hession
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.