Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 F.2d 257 - In re Wertheim

In re Wertheim’s Empirical Analysis

541 F.2d 257 · 1976

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Wl Gore Associates Inc v. Garlock Inc (1983), Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991)

11 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

370197619801990200020102020decided

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 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 132

Relies on Kropa v. Robie · Risse Horlein · Application of Virgil W. Vogel and Paul W. Vogel · Ruschig · In re Lukach

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

  1. “The function of the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he specification 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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “absent some admission that matter disclosed in the specification is in the prior art”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.