Ivar Jepson v. Robert E. Coleman, Jr., and Calvin D. MacCracken’s Empirical Analysis
314 F.2d 533 · 1963
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010), Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. (1997)
10 federal appellate · 4 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 Brand v. Thomas · Crome v. Morrogh · Segall v. Sims
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When one copies claims from a patent for the purpose of instituting interference proceedings, in order to be successful, that person’s application must clearly support those counts. * * * It is not a question whether one skilled in the art might be able to constx-uct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure of the application. Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device. * * * ””
11 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.