In re Haas

How courts have described this case

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

• “[I]n order to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon us, the board must have reviewed an adverse decision of the Examiner relating at least indirectly to a rejection of the claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2016-08-04· cited 42×
• Digital Equipment Corporation v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc.
  First Circuit· 1981-06-12· cited 35×
• Margolis v. Banner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1979-05-31· cited 18×
• In re Mott
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-08-12· cited 13×
• In re Voss
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-06-23· cited 12×
• In re Weber
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-06-30· cited 9×
• In re Harnisch
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1980-06-12· cited 7×
• Tofe v. Winchell
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1981-03-31· cited 7×
• In re Haas
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-06-30· cited 5×
• In re Riggs
  Federal Circuit· 2011-04-12· cited 2×
• Rohm and Haas Company v. Robert Gottschalk, Commissioner of Patents
  D.C. Circuit· 1974-09-18
• Import Motors Ltd. v. United States International Trade Commission
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-02-03
• In re Volk
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1980-11-20

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Application of Leo L. Hengehold
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-29· cited 20×
• Application of John Edward James
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1970-10-22· cited 10×
• Application of John L. Szajna and Ronald G. Lump
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1970-03-05· cited 4×
• In re Dollinger
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-03-15· cited 4×
• In re Litman
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-07-12· cited 1×