In re Berg’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 1428 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Eli Lilly And Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2001), Abbott Laboratories v. Dey L.P. (2002)
8 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 116 · 35 U.S.C. § 121
Relies on In re Goodman · General Foods Corporation v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle · In re Borah · In Re Josephus Jm Braat · In re Calvert
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to prevent rejections for obviousness-type double patenting when the applicants filed first for a basic invention and later for an improvement, but, through no fault of the applicants, the PTO decided the applications in reverse order of filing, rejecting the basic application although it would have been allowed if the applications had been decided in the order of their filing.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Fallaux · In re Hubbell“Obviousness-type double patenting is a judge-made doctrine that prevents an extension of the patent right beyond the statutory time limit. It requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent. Its purpose is to prevent an unjustified extension of the term of the right to exclude granted by a patent by allowing a second patent claiming an obvious variant of the same invention to issue to the same owner later.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f ... an applicant could not have filed both sets of claims in one application” — which is the circumstance that the dissenter asserted obtained in Eli Lilly where one invention and filing preceded the other by nine years —”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.