In re Theis’s Empirical Analysis
610 F.2d 786 · 1979
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd. (1984), Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc. (1993)
14 federal appellate · 4 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 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Cree v. Goldstein · Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Smith Griggs Manuf'G Co v. Sprague · Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright · Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court properly recognized that testing or experimentation performed with respect to non-claimed features of the device does not show that the invention was the subject of experimentation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ***** * "(b) the invention was * * * 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 * * * [.]"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“For § 102(b) to apply it is not necessary that a sale be consummated. It suffices that the claimed invention, reduced to practice, was placed on sale, i.e. offered to potential customers prior to the critical date, (citation omitted). Even if no delivery is made prior to the critical date, the existence of a sales contract prior to that date has been held to constitute an on sale status for the invention if it has been replaced “to a reality.” (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.