In re Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.3d 1375 · 2012
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Dickinson v. Zurko · Tilghman v. Proctor · Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings · Schering Corporation v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Determining whether claims are anticipated involves a two-step analysis.... The first step involves construction of the claims of the patent at issue, ... a question of law reviewed de novo .... The second step of an anticipation analysis involves comparing the claims to the prior art, ... a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence.””
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.