643 F. Supp. 2d 97 - Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 134
Relies on Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. · Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. · Chimie v. Ppg Industries Inc · Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. · Techsearch Llc v. Intel Corporation
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] specification must include both a written description of the invention and an enablement for a claimed invention that explains the “manner and process of making and using [the invention], in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains ... to make and use the same.” At the end of the written description and enablement, a proper specification should conclude with a list of “claims,” which identify the specific innovations, components or subparts of the invention, the applicant regards as hers. A claim is a single sentence description of what the applicant believes to be her invention, setting the boundaries of the invention the applicant wishes the PTO to examine. A single claim can be composed of multiple elements and/or limitations. 1 Elements are the previously known physical components that make up the claimed invention. Limitations, on the other hand, usually describe the claim’s restrictions. An application may contain several claims, and each claim usually contains several restrictions. It is these claims that define the scope of patent protection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Example 13, however, also states that the positions of the start and end of each ORF refer to the sequence presented in figure 4. Figure 4 contains the precise DNA sequence of one of the five listed strains and thus Example 13, while it does not include the specific DNA sequence of each ORF, refers to a figure from which those specific DNA sequences can be determined. Given this, the Court declines to read the language ‘specific DNA sequence' out of its claim construction, and therefore concludes that Intervet's vaccine does not contain one of ORFs 1-13.”). 5 .The”
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.