In Re Berwyn E Etter’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably In Re David C Paulsen, Quantum Corporation v. Rodime Plc (1995)
1 federal appellate · 14 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 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc · Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. · Ssih Equipment Sa v. United States International Trade Commission · Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a very real sense, the intent underlying reexamination is to ‘start over’ in the PTO with respect to the limited examination areas involved, and to reexamine the claims, and to examine new or amended claims, as they would have been considered if they had been originally examined in light of all of the prior art of record in the reexamination proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The essence of all property is the right to exclude, and the patent property right is certainly not inconsequential. It is, nonetheless, created by a grant from the government. When a “substantial question” exists respecting the correctness of that grant, it does not conflict but coincides with the nature of the grantee’s right when the government reexamines the propriety of the grant it has made, and thereafter reaffirms the grant, substitutes a new grant (amended or new claims), or withdraws the grant in whole or in part (the last being subject to review in this court).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The presumption of validity places on the challenger of a patent the burden of coming forward with evidence to establish facts which may lead to the conclusion that the patent is invalid”). Danbury’s briefing has focused on the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.