In re Chase’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““Appellant in the case at bar contends that, irrespective of the propriety of applying the doctrine of estoppel in cases similar to those above cited, estoppel, in this instance, should not apply on account of the special facts involved. First it is ui'ged that Friden did not voluntarily attempt to acquire the claims involved, but that the Primary Examiner knowing of Chase’s second application and of the Friden disclosure, sxigge'sted that Friden copy the claims, which was done. After Friden had copied the claims and brought about the interference at the instigation of the Examiner, he made a motion to dissolve oxx the ground that Chase was estopped. Thus Friden moved to dissolve the interference which he had provoked, and which would leave the claims in his possession regardless of his actual priority. It is also pointed out by appellant that, at the time of the declaration of the two-party interference, the seven-party interference had not yet been terminated and that the issues involved in the two-party interference were not the issues involved in the seven-party ixxterference, and that, in order for Friden and Chase to have contested priority of the issues involved in the instant case, the second interference would have been formed in any event. It is urged that, if Chase had broixght forward in tlie seven-party interference his second application and there challenged Friden or any of the other parties who could make the counts (some of them could not), the Examiner would”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Avery v. Chase

2. ““When Interference No. 60,503 was reformed the party Friden moved to dissolve on the ground that Chase was estopped. This motion was denied by the Examiner of Interferences who held that the decision of the Court was binding upon the tribunals of the Patent Office even though rendered in an ex parte action. The party Avery has reargued this question of estoppel at final hearing in" this interference. It was pointed out that Interference No. 60,503 was declared some nine months after appeal had been taken in Interference No^ 57,166 which appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Board of Appeals. It was suggested that this fact was not called to the attention of the Court and was urged that this constitutes sufficient basis for ignoring the decision of In re Chase-, supra. This is not believed to be the case-. While there is nothing in the above decision which definitely indicates that the Court took into consideration the nature of the Board’s action in dealing with the appeal in Interference No. 57,166, their decision was of record in the file of Interference No. 57,166, which file appears to have been considered by the Court. The showing which has been made by the party Avery is not considered sufficient to justify the Examiner of Interferences in reaching a conclusion contrary to that expressed in the decision of In re Chase, supra. ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Avery v. Chase

3. “an interference settles not only the rights of the parties under the issues or counts of the interference, but also settles every question of the rights to every claim which might have been presented and determined in the interference proceedings. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Application of David Gregg