Mazzari v. Rogan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 11 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In pertinent part, § 145 provides: An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under section 134(a) of this title may ... have remedy by civil action against the Director in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.... The court may adjudge that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, as the facts in the case may appear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Dudas

2. “substantial evidence” standard. See id. If, however, the parties choose to present additional evidence, the district court would make de novo factual findings if the evidence is conflicting. Id. 13 . The MPEP is used by the PTO as a guide in the examination process:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 393 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Hyatt v. Dudas

3. “because the references illustrate that it is well known in the art to use acoustic energy to kill and repel zebra mussels.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.