In re Long’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.2d 458 · 1936
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 1986 · most notably Avery v. Chase (1939), Daniels v. Coe (1940)
1 federal appellate ·
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 Chapman v. Wintroath · Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright · Miller v. Hayman · In re Rhodes · Severson v. Olson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this court the Solicitor for the Patent Office contends that, regardless of whether or not the basis for an equitable estoppel exists, it is the- settled law that, unless appellant, under rule 109, moved to add to the interference claims to the broad subject matter now claimed, the same being broader than the issue of the interference, he is not now entitled to their allowance in the instant application, and relies largely upon In re Rhodes, 80 F.2d 525 , 23 C.C.P.A. (Patents) [816], The Solicitor points out certain distinctions which exist between the instant case and the Rhodes Case, but contends that the distinctions are not material and that the holding of the Board that appellant was not entitled to the claims for the reasons by it stated is abundantly supported by the authorities. “We know of no case on all fours with the case at bar either in the facts or the principles involved. It would be needless to cite authority for the proposition that in the Patent Office there has been a gradual extension of the so-called doctrine of estoppel. In some of its phases it has been approved by the courts, and in others the application of the doctrine has been rejected. It is well-settled, however, that, if a party to an interference fails to submit subject-matter claimed in the application involved or in other applications belonging to him for a contest of priority where such subject-matter is claimed by his adversary or adversaries, he is afterwards barred from obtaining claim”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Avery v. Chase“a losing party in an interference proceeding ordinarily cannot be awarded claims broader than the interference issue and thus have claims which dominate the claims awarded to the successful party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“disclaimed inventorship and waived any rights to any claim of inventorship in said broad subject-matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.