In Re James C Napier’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2019
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
Relies on Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc. · In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags · Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co. · In re Baxter Travenol Labs · In Re John R Beattie
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]bviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching, suggestion, or incentive supporting the combination. However, the suggestion to modify the art to produce the claimed invention need not be express ly stated in one or all the references used to show obviousness. Rather, the test is whether the combined teachings of the pri- or art, taken as a whole, would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
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.