Customs and Patent Appeals· 6/18/1981
In re Reuter
Citations
- 670 F.2d 1015
- 210 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 249
- 1981 CCPA LEXIS 204
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It is well settled that claims before the PTO are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent applica- tion since the applicant may then amend his claims . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekFederal Circuit· 1993-03-11· cited 284×
- Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc. And Ivy J. WinslettFederal Circuit· 1998-09-01· cited 142×
- In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLCFederal Circuit· 2015-07-08· cited 133×
- Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corporation (Also Known as Resco Metal Products Corp.) and Seven Ocean Enterprises, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2001-10-15· cited 129×
- Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., Unique Beverage Dispensers, Inc., David Fox, and Bruce BurwickFederal Circuit· 2002-06-07· cited 63×
- Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corporation and Disc Manufacturing, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1999-01-25· cited 34×
- Oney v. RatliffFederal Circuit· 1999-08-12· cited 31×
- Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & ParrE.D. Virginia· 2011-07-07· cited 17×
- Ca, Inc. v. Simple. Com, Inc.E.D. New York· 2009-03-05· cited 15×
- Finnigan Corp. v. International Trade CommissionFederal Circuit· 1999-06-09· cited 13×
- In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLCFederal Circuit· 2015-02-04· cited 10×
- Lacks Industries, Inc. v. McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2003-03-13· cited 9×
- TradeCard, Inc. v. S1 CORP.S.D. New York· 2007-09-06· cited 2×
- Finnigan Corporation v. International Trade CommissionFederal Circuit· 1999-06-09· cited 1×
- Eazypower Corp. v. Jore Corp.N.D. Illinois· 2010-10-20
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 3,371×
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court· 1923-02-19· cited 576×
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1980-03-17· cited 150×
- Smith v. HallSupreme Court· 1937-04-26· cited 106×
- Application of Charles D. Prater and James WeiCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1969-08-14· cited 100×
- In re WoodCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1979-06-07· cited 80×
- In re RinehartCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1976-03-11· cited 65×
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1977-03-23· cited 55×
- Stevenson v. International Trade CommissionCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1979-12-20· cited 46×
- Jones Knitting Corp. v. MorganThird Circuit· 1966-05-18· cited 38×
- Application of Robert v. AntleCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-10-07· cited 37×
- Application of McKennaCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1953-04-15· cited 34×
- In re LintnerCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1972-05-04· cited 34×
- Kenneth L. Berry v. Watt W. Webb, William A. Wissler and William D. ForgengCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1969-06-26· cited 29×
- Champion Spark Plug Company v. The Gyromat CorporationSecond Circuit· 1979-07-02· cited 29×
- In re BoeschCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1980-03-13· cited 24×
- Application of Sigurd I. LindellCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1967-11-09· cited 22×
- John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. GoodrichCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-05-25· cited 22×
- Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corporation, Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Carman Industries, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1973-05-18· cited 21×
- Berges v. GottsteinCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1980-04-10· cited 21×
Other cases named In re Reuter
5 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.