In re Byck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It would shock one’s sense of justice if an inventor could receive a patent upon a composition of matter, setting out at length in the specification the useful purposes of such composition, manufacture and sell it to the public, and then prevent the public from making any beneficial use of such product by securing patents upon each of the uses to which it may be adapted.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Christmann · Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

2. ““We think it clear that the application here in issue does not claim a separate invention from that claimed in the issued patent, but only claims an obvious use of the composition there patented. If appellant’s position is well taken, then it would seem that any inventor of a new and useful composition of matter may receive a patent for it, and he may also, by filing separate applications, secure patents for every use of such composition that he may disclose. An inventor is not entitled to a patent unless his invention is new and useful.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Seebach

3. ““ The issuance of the first patent does not abandon the unclaimed matter in its disclosure, the pending of the second application rebutting any such inference.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Dreyfus