Application of Ryohei Oda’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2014
4 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 In re Willingham · Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp. · In re Wesseler · Quigley v. Zimmerman
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 251. Reissue of defective patents Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Clark“and, if so, (2) whether a good faith intent, in a previously unsuccessful attempt to gain the benefit of earlier filing date under section 120, can overcome the section 251 prohibition of new matter. OPINION NEW MATTER Section 251 unequivocally states: 17 No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. 18 An addition to a patent specification constitutes”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The provision, first enacted in The Patent Act of 1870 ... that ‘no new matter shall be introduced into the specification' is merely another way of saying that a reissued patent shall be for the same invention as the original.”
1 later decision 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.