393 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Hyatt v. Dudas’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 122 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 134 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Dickinson v. Zurko · In re Gartside · Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc. · Waterhouse v. District of Columbia
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘_.' in the application as filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hyatt v. Dudas
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.