Stoudt v. Guggenheim’s Empirical Analysis
651 F.2d 760 · 1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Johnson v. Stevenson · United States v. Silliman · Rose v. Batson · 28 App. D.C. 535 - Blackford v. Wilder
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We agree with the board’s adoption of the examiner's ex parte determination that the present count is patentably distinct from [the count in] the previous interference. No identity of issues is therefore present in the two interferences and the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. Stoudt moved to add the proposed count. The interference examiner’s denial of that motion was not appealable to the board, and Stoudt could do nothing further to bring the matter before the board in the earlier interference. The estoppel doctrine [based on failure to file a motion] therefore finds no application to the facts of this case.”
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.