Process Control Corporation v. V. Hydreclaim Corporation, Defendant-Cross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 14 district ·

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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 , ¶ 1 requires that the specification adequately discloses to one skilled in the relevant art how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. · 676 F. Supp. 2d 352 - Eli Lilly and Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

2. “‘a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning’t;] the written description in such a case must clearly redefine a claim term ‘so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the paten-tee intended to so redefine that claim term.’”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Net Results, Inc. v. United States · 121 Fed. Cl. 553 - Aar Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States

3. “[W]hen an impossible limitation, such as a nonsensical method of operation, is clearly embodied within the claim, the claimed invention must be held invalid.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 2d 370 - EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. · EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.