Hyatt v. Kappos’s Empirical Analysis

625 F.3d 1320 · 2010

Citation profile

cited by 27 later decisions

cited 3 times by the Supreme Court

February 2021

most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Relationships

Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 144 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 146 · 41 U.S.C. § 321

Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Camp v. Pitts · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission

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

“Any party to an interference dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on the interference, may have remedy by civil action, if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints or as provided in section 141 of this title, unless he has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and such appeal is pending or has been decided.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. · Troy v. Samson Manufacturing Corp.
“consider the proceedings before and findings of the Patent Office in deciding what weight to afford an applicant's newly-admitted evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Belmora, LLC. v. Bayer Consumer Care AG · Hyatt v. Iancu
““a proceeding in a court of the United States having original equity jurisdiction under the patent laws, according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure. It is not a technical appeal from the Patent Office, like that authorized [before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia], confined to the case as made in the record of that office, but is' prepared and heard upon all competent evidence adduced and upon the whole merits.” 112 U. S., at 61 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Kappos v. Hyatt · Kappos v. Hyatt

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.