Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.3d 1371 · 2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2024
3 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Cryns v. Musher · Corbett v. Chisholm · Berman v. Housey · In re Berger · Thompson v. Hamilton
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Board compared claim 205 [the post-critical date claim] with claims 202-203 ... and then with claim 204 [collectively, the pre-critical date claims]. The Board found that California’s claim 205 contained material differences from claims 202-204. Therefore, claim 205 could not benefit from the earlier filing date of those claims.... On appeal, California does not contest the Board’s finding of material differences between claim 205 and claims 202-204. Instead, California challenges the Board’s conclusion that the correct inquiry under § 135(b)(1) asks whether claims 202-204 contain material differences from claim 205 and not whether claims 202-204 are to the same invention as claims in the '646 patent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adair v. Carter · Adair v. Carter
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.