In re DBC’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.3d 1373 · 2008
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably In re Baxter International, Inc. (2012), In re Huai-Hung Kao (2011)
13 federal appellate · 3 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 6
Relies on Woodford v. Ngo · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Freytag v. Commissioner · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]othing prevented DBC from taking steps while this case was before the Board to ascertain the appointment status of the administrative patent judges assigned to its case. Even if DBC did not learn of the judges assigned to its panel until oral argument or until a decision was issued, it still had an opportunity to challenge the composition of the panel in a post-argument submission or in a motion for reconsideration. If DBC had timely raised this issue before the Board, the Board could have evaluated and corrected the alleged constitutional infirmity by providing DBC with a panel of administrative patent judges appointed by the Secretary. Of course, the Board may not have corrected the problem, or even acknowledged that the problem existed. But in that case, DBC would have preserved its right to appeal the issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because we retain discretion to reach issues raised for the first time on appeal, we must consider whether this is one of those exceptional cases that warrants consideration of the [constitutional] issue despite its tardy presentation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Supreme Court has never indicated that [appointment] challenges must be heard regardless of [forfeiture],”
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.