Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 563 F.2d 1026 - In re Richman

In re Richman’s Empirical Analysis

563 F.2d 1026 · 1977

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
October 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Diamond v. Diehr (1981), Parker v. Flook (1978)

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

11019771980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Gottschalk v. Benson · Dann v. Johnston · In re Chatfield · In re Kuehl · In re Christensen

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

  1. “Given that the method of solving a mathematical equation may not be the subject of patent protection, it follows that the addition of the old and necessary antecedent steps of establishing values for the variables in the equation cannot convert the unpatentable method to patentable subject matter. 5”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]f a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “That a claim includes a mathematical expression is not determinative. The decisive factor is whether a claimed method is essentially a mathematical calculation. If it is, deletion from the claims of the mathematical formula involved and substitution of “words which mean the same thing” would not transform the claimed method into statutory subject matter.”
    1 later decision 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.