Julian v. Drying Systems Co.’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.2d 336 · 1965
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1984
9 federal appellate · 2 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 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Marvin Edwin Whiteman v. L. G. Mathews · Wende v. Horine · Armour Research Foundation, Etc. And Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Cross-Appellees v. C. K. Williams & Co., Inc., and Cross-Appellant. Armour Research Foundation, Etc., and Cross-Appellee v. Technical Tape Corporation, and Cross-Appellant · United Kingdom Optical Co. v. American Optical 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States * * *.”
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.