In re Clark’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.2d 623 · 1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Jp Stevens Co Inc v. Lex Tex Ltd Inc (1984), Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (1984)
2 federal appellate · 4 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 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 251
Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Yates v. United States · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wilder · In re Amos““Reissue is not available to rescue a patentee who had presented claims limited to avoid particular prior art and then had failed to disclose that prior art (the examiner not having cited it) after that failure to disclose has resulted in the invalidating of the claims. The sole goal of appellant in soliciting a reissue is to have the examiner re -examine his claims in light of the reference he originally failed to disclose in order, apparently, to relieve him of the consequences of his failure. “While this court has often said that § 251 is to be liberally construed as a remedial statute, In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200 , 58 CCPA 1353 (1971), we do not feel that such liberalism extends to eradication of a dereliction of a duty by what is, in effect, a re-prosecution in which the examiner is now given an opportunity to pass on patentability in light of a very pertinent reference which the applicant knowingly withheld from him. We cannot equate this with ‘error,’ or with ‘inadvertence, accident, or mistake.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“broadly to mean that the subject matter of the claims was not patentable over Stow, rather than as a term of art in patent law to mean that the basis of invalidity was 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102. As noted by the author of the majority opinion, courts occasionally fail to understand the jargon of patent law. Rich, Laying the Ghost of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.