Josef Schmitt and Jacques J. Panouse v. John C. Babcock and Milton E. Herr’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.2d 994 · 1967
Citation profile
Relationships
Relies on In re Bergel · In re Schmidt · 113 F. Supp. 714 - Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Brewster Finishing Co. · Axel C. Wickman and Wickman, Ltd. v. Vinco Corporation and Joseph J. Osplack · De Jahn v. Gaus
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We construe section 119 as follows. Where a proper claim for priority is made a timely filed United States application is entitled to the earlier filing date of a foreign application when (1) “any person” or his “legal representatives or assigns” has (2) “previously regularly filed * * * in a foreign country which affords similar privileges” (3) a foreign application “for the same invention.” The requirements of section 116 and Rule 45 are inapplicable to foreign applications where a claim to the benefit of an earlier filing date is made under section 119.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kawai v. Metlesics
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.