Weil v. Fritz’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.2d 856 · 1978
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1998
3 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 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 115 · 35 U.S.C. § 116 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Ellington v. Blumstein · Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss · Godfrey v. Eames · In re Hogan · Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Party Fritz Party Weil Application Serial No. 617,860 (hereinafter Fritz I) filed February 23, 1967; abandoned December 1, 1969 applicants: Fritz and Evans Party Fritz Party Weil Application Serial No. 693,698 (hereinafter Fritz II) filed December 27, 1967; abandoned April 2, 1970 continuation-in-part of Fritz I applicants: Fritz and Evans (amendment approved March 27, 1970 adding Cooke as joint inventor) Application Serial No. 826,653 filed May 21, 1969 Application Serial No. 869,386 (hereafter Fritz III) filed October 24, 1969 continuation-in-part of Fritz II applicants: Fritz, Evans, and Cooke Application Serial No. 221,803 (Fritz IV) filed January 28, 1972 division of Fritz III applicants: Fritz, Evans, and Cooke”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weil v. Fritz“The Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hester v. Allgeier“An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, ... by the same inventor, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application ____ [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tofe v. Winchell
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.