In re Rowand’s Empirical Analysis
526 F.2d 558 · 1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc. (1991), In re Weiler (1986)
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 251
Relies on U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. · In re Clark · Matter of the Application of Gordon M. De Jarlais · In re DeJarlais
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 26 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 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wilder · In re Weiler“We agree with the board that there is nothing in the original patent evidencing that appellants intended to claim a method of making tubing or that appellants considered the method now claimed [in the reissue application at bar] to be their invention.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hounsfield · In re Doyle“Determining what protection appellants intended to secure by their original patent for the purposes of § 251 is an essentially factual inquiry confined to the objective intent manifested by the original patent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Amos · In re Mead
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.