In re Howard’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.2d 896 · 1931
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 1973
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. § 33
Relies on Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Grant v. Raymond · In re Dunbar · In re Mann · Waterbury Buckle Co. v. G. E. Prentice Mfg. Co.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant’s assignee elected to prosécute the claims here in issue through the Howard application for the purpose of prolonging its monopoly * * *. ****** “We are loath to hold that a party should be denied a patent solely because its grant would extend a monopoly theretofore secured by him, if such extension was due solely to an erroneous decision of the tribunals of the Patent Office, rejecting the claims originally. “We would observe that we have made diligent search for authorities upon the precise questions here involved, but have found none, and the particular state of facts which gives rise to the controversy here seems never to have arisen before in the Patent Office or in the courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Because of the presence.of such common assignee no interference could be declared between the two applications for the reasons stated in the cases of In re Dunbar, 51 App.D.C. 251 , 278 F. 334 , and In re Mann & Koppelman, 47 F.2d 370 , 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1020, and, if appellant’s assignee had included in the Peiler patent claim 25 of the application upon which it is based, or any claim corresponding to the claims here in issue, clearly the claims in issue should have been rejected, even though Howard was in fact the first inventor.” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Certainly, if we were not confronted with a common assignee of both inventions, upon the record before us, Howard would clearly be entitled to the allowance of the claims in issue, as an improvement in the invention patented to Peiler, as Peiler in his affidavit impliedly disclaimed being the inventor of such improvement, even though it was described in his application, and also because his application was filed later than that of Howard. Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Company, 151 U.S. 186 , 14 S.Ct. 310, 38 L.Ed. 121. If, in such case, an interference had been declared upon the two applications, upon the record made an award of priority would have been made to Peiler upon claims 47 and 55 of his application, and an award to Howard upon the claims here in issue.”
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.