Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 F.2d 1366 - In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), Intervenor

In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), Intervenor’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Mendenhall Cmi v. Cedarapids Inc (1993), In Re John R Beattie

1 federal appellate · 7 district ·

16019831990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · In re Sponnoble · Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States · In re Rasmussen · In re Barker

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.