Bilski v. Kappos’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 71 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 353 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l (2014), Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
56 federal appellate · 71 district · 7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Federal Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 273
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
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 353 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or adding 'insignificant postsolution activity.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumers; “(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and “(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions.” App. 19-20.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bilski v. Kappos“Section 101 is a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions. A categorical rule denying patent protection for inventions in areas not contemplated by Congress ... would frustrate the purposes of the patent law.”
1 later decision 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.