In re Wertheim

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 988, 153 USPQ 625, 630-31
• the disclosure relied on must “constitute[ ] a full, clear, concise and exact description ... of the invention claimed”
• “[T]he next question confronting the courts was what filing date was to be accorded a reference patent which issues after a series of applications. How far back can one extend the effective date of a reference patent as ‘prior art’ in such a case?”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-09-19· cited 152×
• Verdegaal Brothers, Inc., William Verdegaal, George Verdegaal v. Union Oil Company of California, Brea Agricultural Services, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-03-12· cited 140×
• Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
  Federal Circuit· 2001-02-01· cited 93×
• Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Gary W. Boone
  Federal Circuit· 1998-08-26· cited 71×
• Riverwood International Corporation v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2003-03-31· cited 68×
• Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-09-04· cited 38×
• Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Gmbh
  Federal Circuit· 2001-02-06· cited 35×
• University of West Virginia Board of Trustees v. VanVoorhies
  N.D. West Virginia· 2000-02-17· cited 11×
• Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2023-03-06· cited 10×
• Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 2007-03-20· cited 6×
• Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
  D. Delaware· 1989-06-30· cited 5×
• Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, Inc.
  N.D. Alabama· 2006-07-12· cited 3×
• Bradshaw v. Igloo Products Corp.
  N.D. Illinois· 1996-01-05· cited 2×
• Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
  S.D. California· 2008-01-17· cited 1×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.
  Supreme Court· 1926-03-15· cited 230×
• In re Wertheim
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-08-26· cited 89×
• Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner
  Supreme Court· 1965-12-13· cited 76×
• Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole Godtfredsen
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-05-11· cited 40×
• Application of Robert J. Harry
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1964-07-09· cited 38×
• Application of Albert Bowers and James C. Orr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1966-05-12· cited 38×
• In re Smith
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-05-18· cited 36×
• In re Samour
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-02-23· cited 31×
• In Re Switzer
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1948-01-27· cited 17×
• Application of Jack E. Caveney
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-11-24· cited 13×
• Application of Harry Louis Yale, Francis Alexander Sowinski and Jack Bernstein
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1965-07-19· cited 12×
• Application of Ernst F. G. Klesper
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1968-06-27· cited 7×