Perkins v. Kwon’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.2d 325 · 1989
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably In re Gartside (2000), Conservolite, Inc. v. Widmayer (1994)
8 federal appellate · 3 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 135 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 7 (§ 8 of the Patent Act of 1952)
Relies on Jones v. Howard · Brenner v. Manson · Reed v. United States · Case v. CPC International, Inc. · In re Rogoff
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.
“(a) Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Commissioner shall give notice of’ such declaration to the applicants, or the applicant and paten-tee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“decision by the Board of all issues that are fully and fairly raised during the interference proceeding, whether related to patentability or priority, is in full accord with congressional intent that PTO procedures be simplified as well as improved. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Board, by resolving both priority and patentability when these questions are fully presented, settles not only the rights between the parties but also rights of concern to the public. The public interest in the benefits of a patent system is best met by procedures that resolve administratively questions affecting patent validity that arise before the PTO. To do otherwise is contrary to the PTO’s mission to grant presumptively valid patents, 35 U.S.C. §-282, and thus disserves the public interest.”
2 later decisions 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.