Nitz v. Ehrenreich’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.2d 539 · 1976
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2024
1 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. § 135
Relies on Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese · Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. Reynolds · Myers v. Feigelman · Vandenberg v. Reynolds
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he existence or nonexistence of interfering subject matter goes to the very foundation on which an interference rests. Determination of the presence or absence of interfering subject matter is “logically related” to the jurisdiction-conferring issue of priority because that determination necessarily precedes a priority award. Accordingly, we conclude that the question of interference in fact presented in this case is one ancillary to priority and may be properly considered by this court. [Citations and footnote omitted.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, would interfere with any pending application ... he shall give notice thereof to the applicants ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tofe v. Winchell“[Interference in fact is an issue ancillary to priority which the board may decide at final hearing and this court may determine on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Aelony v. Urs Arni
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.