Tafas v. Doll’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.3d 1345 · 2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 15 U.S.C. § 1337 (Robinson-Patman Act of 1936) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hanna v. Plumer · Lorillard v. Pons · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the invention claimed in the application must have been properly disclosed in a prior-filed application; (2) the application must have been filed by inventors) named on the prior-filed applica tion; (3) the application must have been “filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application”; and (4) the application must contain or be amended to contain a specific reference to the prior-filed application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.