Fontijn v. Okamoto’s Empirical Analysis
518 F.2d 610 · 1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably In re Wertheim (1976), In re Clark (1975)
6 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 251 · 35 U.S.C. § 252
Relies on In re Willingham · Kawai v. Metlesics · Gubelmann v. Gang · Wagoner v. Barger · In re Rogoff
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the risk that others with specifically different structures may be able to meet the language selected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or 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 new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hay“We think that it is altogether possible that Section 252 can be read broadly enough to protect a deserving third party in this kind of situation. In any event a court sitting in equity, in a dispute between a patentee who had received a reissue patent with the priority right included and an infringer who had, with no warning of any kind, honestly relied on the original patent without the priority right, could justly accommodate these conflicting claims in the light of the particular circumstances.”
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.