Sundback v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.2d 378 · 1931
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 1988 · most notably Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss (1971), Wyden v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks (1986)
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 6 · 35 U.S.C. § 7 (§ 8 of the Patent Act of 1952)
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are clear that appeals can be taken to this court only from decisions which the Board of Appeals is specifically authorized by the statutes to make in proceedings relating to patents; and that any decisions not so authorized but which are made under authority of the Commissioner of Patents to aid him in the performance of his duties, are not appealable to this court. * * -S -A- Nowhere in the statutes is the Board of Appeals specifically given any jurisdiction except in a prescribed appellate capacity. If any jurisdiction is exercised by it in proceedings relating to patents, not expressly authorized by the statutes, but under rules of the Patent Office, any decision rendered thereunder is not a decision which is appealable to this court, because there is no statutory authority for such an appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Appeals may appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, thereby waiving his right to proceed under section 145 of this title. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Nothing herein should be construed as intimating that, if the decision of the Board of Appeals had been based upon an appeal to it from, a decision of a primary examiner or examiner of interferences, dissolving an interference, we would entertain jurisdiction. It is unnecessary for us to decide that question.””
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.