Hyatt v. Doll’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.3d 1246 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 134 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 146 · 47 U.S.C. § 402 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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.
“[Wjhenever a patent on application is refused ... the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity; and the court ... may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention ... as the facts in the case may appear.... [A]nd all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hyatt v. Kappos“[T]he district court must defer to the PTO’s fact-finding [in a § 145 action] except where appropriately admitted new evidence conflicts with a fact found by the PTO or presents a new factual issue that the PTO did not consider.”), and Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 , 1379 (Fed. Cir.2009) (”
1 later decision 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.