In re McKellin’s Empirical Analysis
529 F.2d 1324 · 1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2010
1 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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Julia Hotchkiss Executrix of John Hotchkiss Deceased John Davenport and John Quincy v. Miles Greenwood · Haggar Co. v. Helvering · National Lead Co. v. United States · Costanzo v. Tillinghast · In re Robeson
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he patent law is statutory. Our representative form of government requires that the enactments of its Congress must always be, at the very least, the starting point. There being no common law of patents, we should take care to fill the Holmesian interstices of the statute with judge-made law only under the gravest and most impelling circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Bergy · In re Chakrabarty“whether claims may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the ground that a losing party to an interference is not entitled to claims which are asserted to be obvious variations of the invention defined in the counts, when section 102(g) and interference estoppel are not applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“statutory basis for finding that either the subject matter of the lost counts or the disclosure of the [interfering] patent is prior art, in the sense of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to [McKellin].”
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.