University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.3d 916 · 2004
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010), Invitrogen Corporation v. Clontech Laboratories Inc (2005)
26 federal appellate · 15 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. · O'Reilly v. Morse · Brenner v. Manson
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a written description of his invention, and of the manner of using, or process of compounding the same, in such full, clear, and exact terms, as to distinguish the same from all other things before known, and to enable any person skilled in the art or science ... to make, compound, and use the same....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While it is true that this court and its predecessor have repeatedly held that claimed subject matter `need not be described in haec verba' in the specification to satisfy the written description requirement, it is also true that the requirement must still be met in some way so as to `describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed.'”
2 later decisions 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.