In re Bergy’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 952 · 1979
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Diamond v. Diehr (1981), Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 35 U.S.C. § 1 (American Inventors Protection Act of 1999) · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 154
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“wholly apart from whether the invention falls into a category of statutory subject matter.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Section 101, however, is a general statement of the type of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection “subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” Specific conditions for pat-entability follow and § 102 covers in detail the conditions relating to novelty. The question therefore of whether a particular invention is novel is “wholly apart from whether the invention falls in a category of statutory subject matter.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Diamond v. Diehr · In re Bilski“[The Congress shall have Power] ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
2 later decisions 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.