In re Comiskey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 8 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. In the language of the patent law, it is an art. The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable; whilst the process itself may be altogether new, and produce an entirely new result. The process requires that certain things should be done with certain substances, and in a certain order; but the tools to be used in doing this may be of secondary consequence.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 F. Supp. 3d 356 - Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC · 76 F. Supp. 3d 513 - Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.

2. “A system for mandatory arbitration resolution regarding one or more unilateral documents comprising: a registration module for enrolling a person who is executing and one or more unilateral documents associated with the person in a mandatory arbitration system at a time prior to or as of the time of creation of or execution of the one or more unilateral documents; an arbitration module for incorporating arbitration language, that is specific to the enrolled person, in the previously enrolled unilateral document wherein the arbitration language provides that any contested issue related to the unilateral document must be presented to the mandatory arbitration system, in which the person and the one or more unilateral documents are enrolled, for binding arbitration wherein the contested issue comprises one or more of a challenge to the documents, interpretation of the documents, interpretation or application of terms of the documents and execution of the documents or terms of the documents; and for providing this arbitration language to the enrolled person; an arbitration resolution module for requiring a complainant to submit a request for arbitration resolution to the mandatory arbitration system wherein the request is directed to the contested issue related to the unilateral document containing the arbitration language; and a means for selecting an arbitrator from an arbitrator database to conduct an arbitration resolution for the contested issue related to the unilateral doc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Comiskey

3. “[a]t one time, '[tjhough seemingly within the category of process or method, a method of doing business [was] rejected as not being within the statutory classes.' ” (quoting State Street, 149 F.3d at 1377 )). One commentator has noted that although the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Bilski