In re Corcoran’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 1331 · 1981
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd. (1984), Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant (1989)
5 federal appellate · 5 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. § 112
Relies on Alvado v. General Motors Corp. · Miller v. Rhay · Cirillo v. United States · Timely Products Corp. v. Arron · Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The complete invention claimed must have been embodied in or obvious in view of the thing offered for sale [citations omitted]. Complete readability of the claim on the thing offered is not required because whatever is published (or on sale) more than one year prior to the filing of the patent application becomes part of the prior art over which the claim must be patentable [citations omitted]. (2) The invention must have been tested sufficiently to verify that it is operable and commercially marketable. This is simply another way of expressing the principle that an invention can not be offered for sale until it is completed, which requires not merely its conception but its reduction to practice [citations omitted]. (3) Finally, the sale must be primarily for profit rather than experimental purposes [citations omitted].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (b) 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 * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fundamental principle [embodied in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) ].... applies not only to the precise matter disclosed by the events of [section] 102(b) but also to claimed inventions which would [have been] obvious from the matter disclosed by the events in the sense of [35 U.S.C.] Sec. 103.... [This] principle ... may be called a Secs. 102(b)/103 rejection since it finds its statutory base in both of those sections....”
1 later decision 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.