Young v. Dworkin’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 1277 · 1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Fujikawa v. Wattanasin (1996), Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2001)
5 federal appellate · 5 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Kendall v. Winsor · Mason v. Hepburn · International Glass Co. v. United States · Watson v. Allen · Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. Fenn
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * subordinates his claim, in accordance with the general policy of the law in the promotion of the public interest, to that of another and bona -fide inventor who during the period of inaction and concealment shall have given the benefit of the discovery to the public. Viewed in the light of “the true policy and ends of the patent laws,” the latter is the first to invent, and therefore entitled to the reward. * * * [Thomson v. Weston, 19 App. D.C. 373, 381 (1902). Also, see, Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 322 (1858) ; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D.C. 86 (1898) ; Young v. Dworkin, supra. 6 ]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“I cannot agree with the board that the question in this case is whether Young 'forfeited his right to a patent '. But for Dworkin's conflicting claim, Young forfeited nothing and would get a patent. All he forfeited ... was the right to rely on his prior actual reduction to practice in a priority dispute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulik v. Rizkalla“each case involving the issue of suppression or concealment must be considered on its own particular set of facts.”
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.