Anderson v. Natta’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 1392 · 1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1993
2 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 119
Relies on Brenner v. Manson · Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves · In re Kirk · Kawai v. Metlesics · Campbell v. Wettstein
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he only specific utility asserted by Anderson for any of the products of the runs alleged to constitute reduction to practice is as a film.... [N]o specific utility other than film is identified.... ... Accepting as a fact that ... the film [was self-supporting, tough, and flexible], we nevertheless conclude that in the absence of standard testing for strength, for example, a sample film could not have been assumed to be practically fit for use as a film.... We think there is a discernible difference between a small quantity of polymer product pressed into the shape of a film for infrared scanning, a procedure which must have been standard practice with polymerization reaction products, and a film which is determined to be practically useful in applications for which thermoplastic film is suitable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not convinced that the mere production of a sample film . . . is sufficient to establish usefulness in a practical sense as film,”
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.