Hovlid v. Asari’s Empirical Analysis
305 F.2d 747 · 1962
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2018
9 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on Cee-Bee Chemical Co. v. Delco Chemicals, Inc. · Hayes Spray Gun Company, a Corporation, Stanley A. Hayes and E. A. Patterson v. E. C. Brown Company, a Corporation, E. C. Brown Company, a Corporation v. Hayes Spray Gun Company, a Corporation, Stanley A. Hayes and E. A. Patterson · Hughes Blades, Inc. v. Diamond Tool Associates
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States by the same inventor shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, B. if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application C. or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application D. and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) When an applicant files an application claiming an invention disclosed in a prior filed copending application of the same applicant, the second application must contain or be amended to contain a reference in the specification to the prior application, identifying it by serial number and filing date and indicating the relationship of the applications, if the benefit of the filing date of the prior application is claimed; if no such reference is made the prior application must be referred to in a separate paper filed in the later application. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Having failed to state the serial number, filing date and the relationship of the second patent to the abandoned application, there seems to be a complete failure to comply with Rule 78 and Section 120, and consequently, a waiver of the benefits afforded by the latter section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.