Eiselstein v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 1035 · 1995
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. (1997), PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2008)
11 federal appellate · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar · Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. · Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“about 45-55% ... is not the same as a very different 10% range, viz., 50-60%.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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.””
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.