Cooper v. Goldfarb’s Empirical Analysis
154 F.3d 1321 · 1998
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Finnigan Corporation v. International Trade Commission (1999), Invitrogen Corporation v. Clontech Laboratories Inc (2005)
36 federal appellate · 24 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 135
Relies on Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Price v. Symsek · Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. · Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp. · Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the interference count; and (2) he determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule requires an evaluation of all pertinent evidence when determining the credibility of an inventor's testimony. . . . In order to corroborate a reduction to practice, it is not necessary to produce an actual over-the-shoulder observer. Rather, sufficient circumstantial evidence of an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration requirement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.”
4 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.