Application of Sune Bergstrom and Jan Sjovall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hat appellants claim — pure PGE2 and pure PGE8 — is not “naturally occurring.” Those compounds, as far as the record establishes, do not exist in nature in pure form, and appellants have neither merely discovered, nor claimed sufficiently broadly to encompass, what has previously existed in fact in nature’s storehouse, albeit unknown, or what has previously been known to exist. [Id. 427 F.2d at 1401 , 57 CCPA at 1249 , 166 USPQ at 261. Emphasis in original.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re deC. Kratz · 529 F. Supp. 2d 106 - Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

2. “[T]he criteria for determining whether given subject matter is “new” within the meaning of § 101 are no different than the criteria for determining whether that subject matter possesses the “novelty” expressed in the title of § 102. The word “new” in § 101 is defined and is to be construed in accordance with the provisions of § 102. [Id. 427 F.2d at 1401 , 57 CCPA at 1249 , 166 USPQ at 262.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nickola v. Peterson · In re deC. Kratz

3. ““Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be patented, ‘subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.’ The conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and section 102 covers the conditions relating to novelty.” [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nickola v. Peterson · In re Bergy