Wilder’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co. (1997), 23 F. Supp. 2d 974 - Dethmers Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co. (1998)
13 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
Relies on In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags · In re Wertheim · Ruschig · Ball Corporation v. United States · In re Smith
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]henever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There are two distinct statutory requirements that a reissue oath or declaration must satisfy. First, it must state that the patent is defective or partly inoperative or invalid because of defects in the specification or drawing, or because the patentee has claimed more or less than he is entitled to. Second, the applicant must allege that the defective, inoperative, or invalid patent arose through error without deceptive intent.” In sum, the statutorily required “error” of section 251 has two parts: (1) error in the patent, and (2) error in conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“at the time of prosecution with a more thorough patentability search or with improved communications between the inventors and the attorney....”
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.