Kaplan v. Corcoran’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 1073 · 1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011
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
Relies on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin · United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. · United States v. Midwest Oil Co. · Solomons v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 100.3 Scope. This part applies to any invention made by a Government employee on or after January 23,1950, and to any action taken with respect thereto. % >}: sf: * § 100.6 Determination of rights in and to inventions. (a) Subject to review by the Commissioner as provided for in this part, each Government agency will determine the respective rights of the Government and of the inventor in and to any invention made by a Government employee while under the administrative jurisdiction of such agency. (b) The following rules shall be applied in determining the respective rights of the Government and of the inventor in and to any invention that is subject to the provisions of this part: (1) The Government shall obtain, except as herein otherwise provided, the entire domestic right, title and interest in and to any invention made by any Government employee: (i) During working hours, or (ii) with a contribution by the Government of facilities, equipment, materials, funds or information, or of time or services of other Government employees on official duty, or (iii) which bears a direct relation to or is made in consequence of the official duties of the inventor. (2) In any case where the contribution of the Government, as measured .by any one or more of the criteria set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, to the invention is insufficient equitably to justify a requirement of assignment to the Government of the entire domestic right, title, and interest in and to such inv”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Id. 187, 53 S.Ct. 554 . The Court then considered the employment of the two federal employees of the electrical division of the Bureau of Standards who had invented an application of alternating currents to broadcast receiving sets. The Court stated that if the employees were employed to make an invention, then they must assign the invention to their employer because the invention was the precise subject of their employment. But,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Kaplan v. Corcoran“by virtue of the authority vested in (him) by the Constitution and statutes, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States in the interest of the establishment and operation of a uniform patent policy for the Government with respect to inventions by Government employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kaplan v. Corcoran
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.