In Re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably In Re Omeprazole Patent Litigation (2007), Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp. (2004)
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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross · Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. · Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. · Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Inherent anticipation ... requires that the 'prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] method of preparing a food product rich in glucosinolates, ... and harvesting sprouts prior to the 2-leaf stage, to form a food product comprising a plurality of sprouts.... Although “rich in glu-eosinolates” is recited in the preamble of the claim, the pertinent case law holds that the preamble is given weight if it breathes life and meaning into the claim.... Accordingly, the cited prior art does not anticipate the claims because it does not explicitly teach a method of preparing a food product comprising cruciferous sprouts that are rich in glucosinolates or contain high levels of Phase 2 inducer activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nherency is not necessarily coterminous with knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art.”
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.