In re Jolly

How courts have described this case

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

• stating “the single example itself was lacking in definiteness as to reaction time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Exxon Research and Engineering Company v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2001-09-19· cited 225×
• Application of Arbeit
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1953-09-28· cited 24×
• Application of Patrick
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1951-06-26· cited 5×
• Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2000-03-09· cited 5×
• System Management Arts Inc. v. Avesta Technologies, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2001-04-04· cited 3×
• Application of Frederiksen
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1954-06-18· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1938-05-23· cited 344×
• Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1939-11-06· cited 26×
• Koebel v. Coe
  D.C. Circuit· 1939-06-12· cited 8×
• In re Hutchison
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1939-06-26· cited 7×
• In re Sussman
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1944-02-07· cited 7×
• In re Duggan
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1941-12-29· cited 2×