Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 496 F.2d 1200 - In re Wadlinger

In re Wadlinger’s Empirical Analysis

496 F.2d 1200 · 1974

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
July 2014
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2014

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

7019741980199020002010decided

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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 251

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Zemel v. Rusk · Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · United States v. Hartwell · McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc.

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

  1. “Sec. 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 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. * * * * * * "No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “necessarily depends upon the facts in each case and particularly on the reasons for the cancellation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he deliberate cancellation of a claim of an original application in order to secure a patent cannot ordinarily be said to be an `error' and will in most cases prevent the applicant from obtaining the cancelled claim by reissue.”
    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.