Levin v. Septodont, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 285 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 116 · 35 U.S.C. § 256 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Diamond v. Diehr · Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. · Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All that is required of a joint inventor is that he or she (1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.”
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.