Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 F.3d 967 - In re Comiskey

In re Comiskey’s Empirical Analysis

554 F.3d 967 · 2009

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
September 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (2014), CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (2011)

12 federal appellate · 14 district ·

400200920102020decided

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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 144 · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. · Dickinson v. Zurko · Diamond v. Diehr

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

  1. “[T]he patent statute does not allow patents on particular systems that depend for their operation on human intelligence alone, a field of endeavor that both the framers and Congress intended to be beyond the reach of patentable subject matter.... [I]t is established that the application of human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is not in and of itself patentable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As early as Le Roy v. Tatham , 55 U.S. 156 , 175, 14 How. 156 , 14 L.Ed. 367 (1852), the Supreme Court explained that '[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.' Since then, the unpatentable nature of abstract ideas has repeatedly been confirmed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “registration module for enrolling a person” and an “arbitration module for requiring a complainant [or party] to submit a request for arbitration resolution to the mandatory arbitration system.” Id. at 981 . Utilizing a computer dictionary, the Court noted that”
    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.