Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.2d 779 · 1971
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 38 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 253 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc (1984), Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. (1988)
57 federal appellate · 38 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 Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.
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 253 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The far reaching social and economic consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct ■ and that such monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope. Where fraud is committed, injury to the public through a weakening of the Patent System is manifest.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage““Any application signed or sworn to in blank, or without actual inspection by the applicant, and any application altered or partly filled in after being signed or sworn to ... may be stricken from the files.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 4”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he concept of ‘fraud’ has most often been used by the courts, in general, to refer to a type of conduct so reprehensible that it could alone form the basis of an actionable wrong (e.g., the common law action for deceit). That narrow range of conduct, now frequently referred to as ‘technical’ or ‘affirmative’ fraud, is looked upon by the law as quite serious. Because severe penalties are usually meted out to the party found guilty of such conduct, technical fraud is generally held not to exist unless the following indispensable elements are found to be present: (1) a representation of a material fact, (2) the falsity of that representation, (3) the intent to deceive or, at least, a state of mind so reckless as to the consequences that it is held to be the equivalent of intent (scien-ter), (4) a justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation by the party deceived which induces him to act thereon, and (5) injury to the party deceived as a result of his reliance on the misrepresentation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.