In re Hogan’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.2d 595 · 1977
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (2003), Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (1991)
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 132
Relies on Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Miller v. Rhay · Godfrey v. Eames
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[In Fisher] this court set forth the basic considerations respecting enablement and the potential for domination of future developments, describing the effect of predictability factors upon those considerations. We adhere to what was there said concerning the high level of predictability in mechanical or electrical environments and the lower level of predictability expected in chemical reactions and physiological activity. With respect to the erroneous use of a later state of the art in determining enablement, however, we make no distinction between fields of invention.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of [35 U.S.C. § 112] in an application previously filed in the United States ... shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a limit upon continuing applications is a matter of policy for the Congress, not for us . . . . The law set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112 and 120 is the same for all applications, whether of long or short pendency.”
2 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.