Gould Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
579 F.2d 571 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Manville Sales Corporation v. Paramount Systems Inc S J (1990), Umc Electronics Company v. United States (1987)
7 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Smith Griggs Manuf'G Co v. Sprague · Cirillo v. United States · Hall v. Macneale · Mason v. Hepburn
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“capable of performing its intended purpose in its intended environment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It appears certain that the purpose of the on sale bar and the 1-year grace period is an attempt by Congress to balance the interests of the inventor with the interests of the public. On the one hand, Congress was concerned that an inventor would have sufficient time to not only determine whether a patent is desired following a sale, but that sufficient time would also be provided to have the patent application prepared and filed in the Patent Office. On the other hand, Congress was concerned with encouraging inventors to file for a patent as soon as possible and, at the same time, prevent the commercial exploitation of an invention for more than 1 year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.