The Bendix Corporation v. Balax, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
421 F.2d 809 · 1970
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Loctite Corporation v. Ultraseal Ltd (1985), Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Company (1980)
36 federal appellate · 3 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Lear, Inc. v. Adkins · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States by the same inventor shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * the right to estop licensees from challenging a patent is not part of the ‘limited protection’ afforded by the patent monopoly. Furthermore, the reason is that it creates a danger of unwarranted monopolization. Such danger may be even greater here than in the usual licensee-estoppel case for the reason that in the instant case the licensor sought to create an irrevocable estoppel, not one merely extending during the life of the licenses and sales agreements.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To come within the purview of Section 120, the later application must 1) disclose an invention disclosed in the manner provided in 35 U.S.C.A. § 112 in an earlier application; 2) be by the same inventor; 3) be filed before the patenting of the earlier application; and 4) contain a specific reference to the earlier application.””
2 later decisions 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.