Ushakoff v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.2d 669 · 1964
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 1999 · most notably Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp. (1974), Rca Corporation v. Data General Corporation, Defendant/cross-Appellant (1989)
12 federal appellate · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. · Smith Griggs Manuf'G Co v. Sprague · Marshall v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the purpose of the 1-year statutory bar is to prevent an inventor from obtaining profits on his invention for a number of years and then at a later date obtaining a patent,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantially for purposes of experiment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There was no pretense that they were ready for actual use as lifesaving equipment; in fact, changes were continually being made in the solar stills to overcome defects reported by the Air Corps.””
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.