Roach v. Crouch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

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

1. “At the heart of any ownership analysis lies the question of who first invented the subject matter at issue, because the patent right initially vests in the inventor who may then, barring any restrictions to the contrary, transfer that right to another, and so forth. However, who ultimately possesses ownership rights in that subject matter has no bearing whatsoever on the question of who actually invented that subject matter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13016 - Heath v. Micropatent, No. Cv 97-0401481-S (Dec. 10, 1997)

2. “[a] fundamental feature of the doctrine is the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action. Absent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position, application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent, misleading results exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund

3. “exclusive vehicle for correction of a bona fide mistake in joining a person as inventor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13016 - Heath v. Micropatent, No. Cv 97-0401481-S (Dec. 10, 1997)