Acme Highway Products Corp. v. D. S. Brown Co.’s Empirical Analysis
431 F.2d 1074 · 1970
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 1996 · most notably Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Company (1980), Jamesbury Corp. v. United States (1975)
15 federal appellate · 11 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 Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Loom Company v. Higgins · Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford · Chapman v. Wintroath
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 45 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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The inquiry required by section 120 demands a comparison not only of the claims of the parent and continuation-in-part applications, but also of any other disclosures made in the applications. Thus, a feature claimed in the second application which was not claimed in the first, but which appeared in the specification or drawings of the first, is considered to be disclosed in each. An application effects a reduction to practice of everything disclosed therein, regardless of what is claimed. Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U.S. 126, 137 , 40 S.Ct. 234 , 64 L.Ed. 491 (1920); Benedict v. Menninger, 64 F.2d 1001, 1003 , 20 CCPA 1138 (1933); Arnold v. Langmuir, 36 F.2d 834, 835 , 17 CCPA 756 (1930). At page 1079.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he later application must: (a) disclose an invention which had previously been disclosed in the manner provided in 35 U.S.C. § 112 in an earlier application; (b) be by the same inventor; (c) be filed before the abandonment of the prior application; (d) expressly refer to the prior application. 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1964).”
1 later decision 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.