Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 F.3d 1368 - In re Swanson

In re Swanson’s Empirical Analysis

540 F.3d 1368 · 2008

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably In re Baxter International, Inc. (2012), Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. (2013)

18 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

270200820102020decided

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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 2 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 303 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 305 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980)

Relies on Duncan v. Walker · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Harris v. United States · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Garcia v. United States

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

  1. “Congress intended reexaminations to provide an important 'quality check' on patents that would allow the government to remove defective and erroneously granted patents.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368 , 1375 (Fed.Cir.2008). 30 . For example, document 662 is an e-mail discussion, which was released in redacted form, regarding a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we are mindful that Congress intended that the courts continue to ‘judiciously interpret the substantial new question standard to prevent cases of abusive tactics and harassment of patentees through reexamination.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “look[ing] not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy.”
    1 later decision 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.