In re Wasserfallen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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.

1. ““It has long been settled law that a judgment between the same parties upon the same cause of action is res judicata, ‘not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.’ [Citing authorities.] ” 49 App.D.C. 261 , at page 263, 263 F. 813 , 815. Again, in Re Wasserfallen, 54 App.D.C. 367 , 298 F. 826 , in a like situation we said: “In so far as the Patent Office and this court are concerned, the adjudications already had in this matter have finally settled, not only the rights of the parties under the issue or counts of the interference, but every question and the rights to every claim which might have been presented and determined in the interference proceedings. [Citing authorities, including Blackford v. Wilder, supra.] “If the tribunals of the Patent Office having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties in interference proceedings err in the exercise of that jurisdiction, their decision, though erroneous, is not subject to attack in a collateral proceeding. If Strifler was improvidently granted a right to amend, or if the right to amend or the withdrawal from issue was improvidently denied to Wasserfallen, the errors resulting should have been corrected on appeal from the interference decision. If they were not so corrected, they certainly cannot now be reviewed on an ex parte appeal from a decision refusing to reissue the pat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Coe

2. ““The language of the counts of the interference differs, it is true, from that of the claims of the reissue application; nevertheless if the interference applications disclosed the invention claimed in the reissue application, it must be held that the reissue claims were involved and might home been presented and determined in the interference proceedings. The iwoention was so disclosed, and it therefore follows that WasserfaMen was estopped by the interference decision from making the reissue claims. New Departure Manufacturing Co. v. Robinson, 39 App. D. C. 504 , 507; Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C. 535 , 544, 550; In re Marconi, 38 App. D. C. 286 , 293.” (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Austin