In re Dien’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.2d 151 · 1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc (1984), In re Merck & Co. (1986)
4 federal appellate ·
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. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 251
Relies on David Muskrat v. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk · McCormick Harvesting Mach Co v. C Aultman Co Same · Swingline, Inc. v. I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. · Bally Manufacturing Corp. v. Diamond
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1.175 Reissue oath or declaration. [Rule 175.] (a) Applicants for reissue, in addition to complying with the requirements of the first sentence of § 1.65, must also file with their applications a statement under oath or declaration as follows: ****** (4) When the applicant is aware of prior art or other information relevant to patentability, not previously considered by the Office, which might cause the examiner to deem the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, particularly specifying such prior art or other information and requesting that if the examiner so deems, the applicant be permitted to amend the patent and be granted a reissue patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Keil“The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be appliable to applications for reissue of a patent____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Keil“might cause the examiner to deem the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In Re Joseph W. Keil
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.