In re Sasse’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 675 · 1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (2003), In Re John a Donohue
6 federal appellate · 13 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Chapman v. Wintroath · In re LeGrice · In re Samour · In re Payne · In re Jacobs
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The solicitor states, “there can be no serious doubt at this time that 35 U.S.C. § 135 (b) operates to effect a kind of statutory bar, estoppel or loss of right.” We agree that a procedural statutory bar arises proscribing the instigation of interferences after a specified interval. But we do not agree that a substantive bar is raised by § 135(b) in an ex parte context.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). A § 102(b) bar”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether those skilled in the art already possessed the necessary precursors is an issue subject to a shifting burden of proof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Morris Epstein
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.