In re Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• although the proved misconduct was not fraud under Walker Process, it was inequitable and sufficient to reject all claims in reissue application
• unsuccessful attempt to overcome failure to inform the PTO of highly relevant prior art by reissue of patent
• unsuccessful attempt to overcome failure to inform the PTO of highly relevant prior art by reissue of patent
• reissue un available to rescue patentee who committed inequitable conduct during original prosecution
• “[Inequitable conduct] goes to the patent right as a whole, independently of particular claims”.
• “[Inequitable conduct] goes to the patent right as a whole, independently of particular claims”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1984-02-14· cited 211×
• J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Lex Tex Ltd., Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 179×
• J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 165×
• Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated
  Federal Circuit· 1989-10-06· cited 117×
• Rohm and Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. Eller
  Federal Circuit· 1983-12-07· cited 113×
• Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc. And Barlow Marine, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-08-25· cited 92×
• Plastic Container Corporation v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.
  Tenth Circuit· 1979-09-25· cited 62×
• A.B. Dick Company, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Burroughs Corporation, Appellee/cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1986-08-18· cited 62×
• In Re Leslie N. Wilder, James C. Whitney and Gary G. Matison, and Lanier Business Products, Intervenor
  Federal Circuit· 1984-06-20· cited 54×
• In Re Elmar W. Weiler and Richard L. Mansell
  Federal Circuit· 1986-05-08· cited 49×
• Argus Chemical Corporation v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-04-04· cited 43×
• Digital Equipment Corporation v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc.
  First Circuit· 1981-06-12· cited 35×
• In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse and David S. Riddle
  Federal Circuit· 1991-12-31· cited 23×
• Peeler v. Miller
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-06-10· cited 22×
• In Re Kozaburo Harita, Kukiyoshi Ajisawa, Kinji Iizuke, Yukihiko Kinoshita, Tetsuhide Kamijo, and Michihiro Kobayashi
  Federal Circuit· 1988-05-24· cited 19×
• Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
  E.D. Virginia· 1998-10-23· cited 14×
• Gemveto Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Lambert Bros., Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1982-07-13· cited 13×
• In re Rowand
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1975-10-23· cited 13×
• Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co.
  N.D. Indiana· 1992-07-22· cited 12×
• USM Corp. v. SPS Technologies, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 1981-05-04· cited 9×

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Commissioner v. Sunnen
  Supreme Court· 1948-04-19· cited 2,464×
• Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
  Supreme Court· 1971-05-03· cited 2,250×
• Yates v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1957-06-17· cited 1,277×
• Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.
  Supreme Court· 1945-04-23· cited 1,028×
• Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1965-12-06· cited 902×
• Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1945-05-28· cited 362×
• Triplett v. Lowell
  Supreme Court· 1936-03-30· cited 184×
• Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
  Supreme Court· 1948-02-16· cited 172×
• Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1954-03-15· cited 133×
• Beckman Instruments, Inc., and Leland C. Clark, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Chemtronics, Inc. And J. Ryan Neville, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
  Fifth Circuit· 1970-06-19· cited 74×
• Scott Paper Company, and Cross-Appellee v. Fort Howard Paper Company, and Cross-Appellant
  Seventh Circuit· 1970-09-04· cited 44×
• Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1970-04-14· cited 43×
• Schering Corporation v. Gilbert
  Second Circuit· 1946-01-18· cited 35×
• Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Philco Corporation and Radio Equipment Company, Inc., Cross-Appellants
  Seventh Circuit· 1965-11-02· cited 26×
• Application of Milton E. Herr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-05-11· cited 25×
• Fontijn v. Okamoto
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1975-06-19· cited 25×
• Kalo Inoculant Co. v. Funk Bros. Seed Co.
  Seventh Circuit· 1947-06-12· cited 24×
• In re Herr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1962-07-11· cited 21×
• In re Wadlinger
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1974-05-23· cited 19×
• Application of Ryohei Oda
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-07-01· cited 16×