Robert C. Woofter v. Vernon E. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 436 · 1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2001), Paulik v. Rizkalla (1985)
3 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady · Bates v. Coe · Mason v. Hepburn · Woodbridge v. United States · Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As appellee’s rollers are so arranged that they are free to move longitudinally in the cups, as clearly appears from the drawings in appellee’s application, it is immaterial, so far as the issue here is concerned, that no reference was made in appellee’s application to such longitudinal movement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carlson v. Nagata“established in the present record facts which establish a concealment or suppression of the AMP invention within the so-called `forfeiture rule' of Mason v. Hepburn * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[u]nder these circumstances, [Carlson] has forfeited its right to a patent”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulik v. Rizkalla
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.