Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 600 F.2d 807 - In re Bradley

In re Bradley’s Empirical Analysis

600 F.2d 807 · 1979

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
December 1994
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1994

90197919801990decided

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 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Gottschalk v. Benson · Parker v. Flook · Meers v. Sundstrand Corp. · In re Freeman · In re Chatfield

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

  1. “It is of course true that a modern digital computer manipulates data, usually in binary form, by performing mathematical operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or bit shifting, on the data. But this is only how the computer does what it does.- Of importance is the significance of the data and their manipulation in the real world, i.e., what the computer is doing. It may represent the solution of the Pythagorean theorem, or a complex vector equation describing the behavior of a rocket in flight, in which case the computer is performing a mathematical algorithm and solving an equation. [Emphasis in original.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We see no difference in this regard, with respect to being within § 101, between appellants’ claimed invention and a strictly mechanical adding machine, which is certainly statutory if claimed in a manner which does not embrace any particular calculation that the machine is capable of making.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Even though the claimed invention is a machine, we must nevertheless determine whether the claim recites a mathematical algorithm, and, if so, whether it preempts the use of the algorithm.”
    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.