U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
315 U.S. 668 · 1942
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 308 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996), Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995)
97 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Topliff v. Topliff · Seymour v. Osborne · Mahn v. Harwood · Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co.
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 308 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And it is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification. It must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court has uniformly held that the omission from a reissue patent of one of the steps or elements prescribed in the original, thus broadening the claims to cover a new and different combination, renders the reissue void, even though the result attained is the same as that brought about by following the process claimed in the original patent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever any patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the duty required by law, cause a patent for the same invention * * * to be reissued to the patentee * * * for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. * * *”
3 later decisions 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.