Application of Douglas H. Moreton’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 1990 · most notably In Re Diane M Dillon, In re Dillon (1990)
1 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 United States v. Baxter · In re Eitzen · In re Crowley
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant further attempts to disparage the value of the French patent as a reference on the ground that it is a ‘foreign patent,’ and is good ‘for only what it clearly and definitely discloses.’ That statement is true with respect to any reference, patent or otherwise, foreign or domestic. There is no basis in the statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103) for discriminating either in favor of or against prior art references on the basis of nationality. We do know that some opinions have looked askance at foreign patents but that is for the reason that the patents of some countries have been nortorious for containing inadequate and incomplete disclosures. A consideration of cases will show that this type of argument has not borne fruit in this court for the past 30 years. See In re Cross, 62 F.2d 182 , 20 CCPA 710 ; In re Crowley, 74 F.2d 753 , 22 CCPA 881 , and In re Eitzen, 86 F.2d 411 , 24 CCPA 772 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his mere matter of form [i.e., claiming a new use as a process] should have no effect on patentability”
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.