Credle v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 1566 · 1994
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp. (1997), Eastman Kodak Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (1997)
7 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 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on Marathon Oil Co. v. United States · Thompson v. Thompson · Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar · Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Shandon 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhere the sets of dates alleged define distinct, non-overlapping periods, the allegation that the inventors are joint is facially inconsistent with the two distinct periods, because a person who first conceived and first reduced the subject matter of the invention to practice cannot, under the law, be a joint inventor with a person who allegedly did not even conceive the invention until after the former’s reduction to practice. Collaboration under such circumstances simply is not possible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
1 later decision 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.