M. O. S. Corp. v. John I. Haas Co.’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.2d 910 · 1964
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp. · Winans v. Adam Edward and Talbot Denmead · Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold that the facts pertaining to the application for reissue, its rejection, and the abandonment of the appeal therefrom do not give rise to file wrapper estoppel, collateral estoppel, or res judicata, so as to preclude M.O.S. from asserting that, by application of the doctrine of equivalency, the claims of the patent cover the method of compressing and packing hops in single standard drums.8” 1”
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.