Sanford v. Kepner’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1995 · most notably Frederick F. Glass v. William C. De Roo (1956), Radio Corp. of America v. International Standard Electric Corp. (1956)
54 federal appellate · 33 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
reviewedSanford v. Kepner (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hill v. Wooster · Hoover Co. v. Coe · Knutson v. Gallsworthy · Public Service Commission v. Wycoff 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[N]o adjudication can be made in favor of the applicant, unless the alleged invention for which a patent is sought is a patentable invention. The litigation * * * cannot be concluded by solely determining an issue as to which of [the parties] in fact first made [the invention].””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Civil action in case of interference. Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the board of patent interferences on the question of priority, may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints or as provided in section 141 of this title, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and such appeal is pending or has been decided. In such suits the record in the Patent Office shall be admitted on motion of either party under the terms and conditions as to costs, expenses, and the further cross-examination of the witnesses as the court imposes, without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony. The testimony and exhibits of the record in the Patent Office when admitted shall have the same effect as if originally taken and produced in the suit. Such suit may be instituted against the party in interest as shown by the records of the Patent Office at the time of the decision cornplained of, but any party in interest may become a party to the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent.”
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.