Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.3d 1330 · 2008
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016), Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (2009)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 2 · 35 U.S.C. § 251 · 35 U.S.C. § 252 · 35 U.S.C. § 311 · 44 U.S.C. § 1507
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Russello v. United States · Alexander v. Sandoval · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for patent for [1] an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is [2] filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, [3] if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on [3a] the first application or on [3b] an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and [4] if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tafas v. Doll
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.