LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
424 F.3d 1336 · 2005
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 31 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · O'Reilly v. Morse · Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp. · Merrill v. Yeomans · Tronzo v. Biomet, 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim will not be invalidated on section 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language. That is because the patent specification is written for a person of skill in the art, and such a person comes to the patent with the knowledge of what has come before. Placed in that context, it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the invention in the specification; only enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention and to enable such a person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 112 ¶ 1. 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] recitation of how to make and use the invention across the full breadth of the claim is ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor possesses the full scope of the invention, and vice ver-sa. ... Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in claim [6 of the ’995 Patent] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under section 112, paragraph one.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Alonso · Hyatt v. Iancu
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.