Silvestri v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.2d 593 · 1974
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Price v. Symsek (1993), Cooper v. Goldfarb (1998)
1 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
Relies on Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Heard v. Burton · Adrian P. Brokaw v. Charles B. Vogel · In re Ruschig · John O. Paivinen v. Eugene A. Sands
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not require that [a prior inventor] establish that he recognized the invention in the same terms as those recited in the count. The invention is not the language of the count but the subject matter thereby defined. [The prior inventor] must establish that he recognized and appreciated [the] new form.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is now well settled that in [an accidental creation] there is no conception or reduction to practice where there has been no recognition or appreciation of the existence of the new form.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not a new compound but a new form of an old one, i. e., ampicillin. There is no reason to believe that the crystal structure and absence or presence of bound water would affect the pharmacological properties of ampicillin. Furthermore, the tests in question were run to demonstrate shelf stability of specific lots. Nevertheless utility can be inferred from these tests because a harmful bacterium was killed even though the tests were not run for that purpose. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ciric v. Flanigen
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.