Noelle v. Lederman’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 1343 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc. (2007), Wyers v. Master Lock Co. (2010)
14 federal appellate · 5 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 In re Gartside · Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar · Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co. · Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Invention “A” is the same patentable invention as an invention “B” when invention “A” is the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention “B” assuming invention “B” is prior art with respect to invention “A”. Invention “A” is a separate patentable invention with respect to invention “B” when invention “A” is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention “B” assuming invention “B” is prior art with respect to invention “A”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the case of a claim to antibodies, the correlation between structure and function may also be satisfied by the disclosure of a newly characterized antigen by its structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties if you find that the level of skill and knowledge in the art of antibodies at the time of filing was such that production of antibodies against such an antigen was conventional or routine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If [the applicant] had sufficiently described the human form of CD40CR antigen, he could have claimed its antibody by simply stating its binding affinity for the "fully characterized” antigen. [The applicant] did not describe human CD40CR antigen. Therefore, [the applicant] attempted to define an unknown by its binding affinity to another unknown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Alonso
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.