Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F.3d 1573 - In re GPAC Inc.

In re GPAC Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

57 F.3d 1573 · 1995

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
September 2023
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 19 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Wyers v. Master Lock Co. (2010), SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp. (2000)

29 federal appellate · 19 district ·

4801995200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 141

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Bibby v. United States

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

  1. “(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; (3) objective evidence of nonobviousness; and (4) the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter. [Furthermore,] [i]n determining the scope and content of the prior art, “[w]hether a reference ... is ‘analogous’ is a fact question” that [the appellate court will] review for clear error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “For objective evidence to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[M]ore than the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is needed to make that action significant to a determination of the obviousness issue.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.