Kistler v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis
412 F.2d 280 · 1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 1996
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 135
Relies on In re Kiekhaefer · Kyrides v. Andersen · In re Dickinson · Hopkins v. Peters
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The former [old Rule 114] only called upon the junior party in the pleading, called a Preliminary Statement, to allege facts which, if subsequently proved, would overcome the prima fa-cie case made by the date of the senior party’s application, whereas the latter [Rule 204(c)] calls upon the junior party to prove (by way of affidavit (s) setting forth facts) at least so much of his case as would entitle him to an award of priority if the senior party were to rely only on his filing date and were not to rebut any of the junior party’s case. Under old Rule 114, it was to be assumed that the junior party could prove what he alleged in his Preliminary Statement; he was not required to prove anything. Under Rule 204(c), however, prima facie proof of facts is called for, albeit in affidavit form. We also disagree with Kistler’s sug- ■ gestión that Rules 204(c) and 228 place any undue burden on a junior party or are inherently in any way “contrary to the statutory rights of a first inventor.” The expense involved in a protracted interference, and the special hardships workable on a paten-tee involved therein, are notorious, and to minimize both, where possible, would appear to be the laudable purpose of these rules. If a junior party is in fact “a first inventor” and if he could prove that in a “full hearing on priority,” we see no reason why he should be prejudiced or unduly burdened by a requirement that he prove (prior to a “full hearing”) by way of affidavits and documentary evi”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hahn v. Wong · Golota v. Strom“We cannot accept this procedural theory. To do so would entirely vitiate the purposes of Rules 204(c) and 228 and allow mere uncorroborated assertions to take the place of proof of acts and circumstances adequate to overcome Weber’s March 9, 1960, filing date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Golota v. Strom
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.