Naber v. Cricchi’s Empirical Analysis
567 F.2d 382 · 1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2019
1 federal appellate · 2 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. § 102
Relies on Young v. Dworkin · John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. Goodrich · Rey-Bellet v. Engelhardt · Eugene O. Keizer v. William E. Bradley · Kendall v. Searles
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“work in preparation for filing related patent applications may suffice (e. g., Rey-Bellet v. Englehardt , 493 F.2d 1380 , 181 USPQ 453 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1974) ), as may work required to develop a first invention in order to develop or reduce to practice a second invention (e. g., Keizer v. Bradley , 270 F.2d 396 , 47 CCPA 709 , 123 USPQ 215 (1959) ; Thompson v. Dunn , 166 F.2d 443 , 35 CCPA 957 , 77 USPQ 49 (1948) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“At bottom, the problem was ATI's failure to 'explain why the team of engineers and designers could not have designed, built, and tested a chip embodying the claimed elements, without those optional features,' " Dir. Br. 56, quoting PTAB '053 Op. at 52-53. The Director states that to show diligence "the work relied on must ordinarily be directly related to reduction to practice of the invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Public policy favors the early disclosure of inventions. This underlies the requirement for “reasonable diligence” in reducing an invention to practice, not unlike the requirement that, to avoid a holding of suppression or concealment, there be no unreasonable delay in filing an application once there has been a reduction to practice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Griffith v. Kanamaru
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.