Capon v. Eshhar’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.3d 1349 · 2005
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010), Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (2008)
21 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 6 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Dickinson v. Zurko · In re Gartside · Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. · Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. · Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The descriptive text needed to meet these requirements varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence. The law must be applied to each invention that enters the patent process, for each patented advance is novel in relation to the state of the science. Since the law is applied to each invention in view of the state of relevant knowledge, its application will vary with differences in the state of knowledge in the field and differences in the predictability of the science.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, it must describe the manner and process of making and using the invention so as to enable a person of skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation. Second, it must describe the invention sufficiently to convey to a person of skill in the art that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application, i.e., that the patentee invented what is claimed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the existing knowledge in a particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.”
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.