Application of Henri-Georges Doll’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2012
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
Relies on 265 F. Supp. 961 - La Maur, Inc. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc. · Jacques Andre Stohr v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of Patents
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Bennett · In re Fotland“The new statute enacts a fixed period of two years from the grant of the original patent, within which to apply for a reissue “enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent.” Such a reissue cannot be obtained on an application filed more than two years after the date of the original patent, and presumably is timely if applied for within two years as far as the reissue requirements are concerned.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“175. Reissue oath or declaration, (a) Applicants for reissue, in addition to complying with the requirements of the first sentence of rule 65, must also file with their applications a statement under oath or declaration as follows: (1) That applicant verily believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, and the reasons why. (2) When it is claimed that such patent is so inoperative or invalid “by reason of a defective specification or drawing,” particularly specifying such defects. (3) When it is claimed that such patent is inoperative or invalid “by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent,” distinctly specifying the excess or insufficiency in the claims. (4) Particularly specifying the errors relied upon, and how they arose or occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wittry
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.