Chapman v. Beede’s Empirical Analysis
296 F. 956 · 1924
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Refining, Inc. (1943), Rieser v. Williams (1958)
4 federal appellate · 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 Mahn v. Harwood · Chapman v. Wintroath · 45 App. D.C. 207 - Rowntree v. Sloan · 47 App. D.C. 428 - Wintroath v. Chapman · Wells v. Honigmann
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is apparent, therefore, that the underlying principle of the [Supreme Court’s] decision in the Chapman-Wintroath Case is that, where an inventor files an application disclosing an invention not embraced in his claims, and allows two years to elapse after the issuance of a patent to another embracing the matter not so claimed, he in effect has dedicated such invention to the public. When the prior application matures into a patent, it will be notice to the public of what it discloses, and, should it appear, in a suit upon the prior patent, that the patentee there was not the original inventor, of course his patent would be invalid, and the public would reap the benefit. To permit a party, who discloses, but does not claim, interfering subject-matter, to file a second application years after the issuance of a patent to another, would, in the event of a judgment of priority in his favor, prolong the monopoly granted by the statute, and thus frustrate its object. This would encourage delay, because, by dilatory tactics, an application might be kept alive in the Patent Office until the invention was successfully exploited. There is every reason, therefore, why the two-year rule should be rigidly adhered to in such a situation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hanna“* * * Beede’s failure to copy these claims within two years from the issuance of the Chapman patent could result in no prejudice to the public, because irrespective of this interference, his earlier application would have matured into a patent carrying claims of the same scope. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hanna“the function of the two members was substantially the same”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Application of Tanke
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.