Driscoll v. Cebalo’s Empirical Analysis
731 F.2d 878 · 1984
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. (1988), Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc. (1995)
9 federal appellate · 11 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc · Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) No patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or gross negligence. The claims in an application shall be rejected if upon examination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 131 and 132, it is established by clear and convincing evidence (1) that any fraud was practiced or attempted on the Office in connection with the application, or in connection with any previous application upon which the application relies, or (2) that there was any violation of the duty of disclosure through bad faith or negligence in connection with the application, or in connection with any previous application upon which the application relies.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“intent may be inferred where a patent applicant knew, or should have known, that withheld information would be material to the PTO's consideration of the patent application,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Moreover, an applicant who, with gross negligence, has withheld from the PTO prior art material to a claim in a parent application should not be exculpated simply because, by fortuitous circumstances, the PTO has not reached the stage of allowing claims in a continuing application.”
1 later decision 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.