Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.2d 588 - In re Barker

In re Barker’s Empirical Analysis

559 F.2d 588 · 1977

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
September 2012
most recently cited

12 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010), Crown Operations International, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc. (2002)

12 federal appellate ·

19019771980199020002010decided

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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 171

Relies on United States v. Menasche · Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad · Gill v. Wells · Evans v. Eaton · Ruschig

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

  1. “a written description of his invention, and of the manner of using, or process of compounding the same, in such full, clear, and exact terms, as to distinguish the same from all other things before known, and to enable any person skilled in the art or science ... to make, compound, and use the same....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The 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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The attempt to create historical and current statutory support for a separate description requirement, which was solely a judicial (and unnecessary) response to chemical cases in which appellants were arguing that those skilled in the art might make and use a claimed invention, is mistaken.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.