Sewall v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 411 · 1994
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Cr Bard Inc v. M3 Systems Inc (1998), Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (1994)
14 federal appellate · 10 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 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 116
Relies on Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · In re Caveney · Coleman v. Dines · In re Abele
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is formed in the mind of the inventor.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]etermining 'inventorship' is nothing more than determining who conceived the subject matter at issue, whether that subject matter is recited in a claim in an application or in a count in an interference.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]onception is [only] complete when one of ordinary skill in the art could construct the apparatus.”
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.