In re Ornum’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.2d 937 · 1982
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Eli Lilly And Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2001), In re Goodman (1993)
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 121 · 35 U.S.C. § 253 · 35 U.S.C. § 261 · 35 U.S.C. § 6
Relies on Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss · Underwood v. Gerber · In re Robeson · Pope Manuf'G Co v. Gormully Jeffery Manuf'G Co
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fundamental reason for the rule [of obviousness-type double patenting] is to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent no matter how the extension is brought about.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he only difference between the claims on appeal and the claims of the ’799 patent resides in the recited ratio of high to low molecular weight butyl rubber, as follows: application: between 20/80 and 60/40 patent ’799: between 35/65 and 45/55.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he rule is substantive in that it relates to a condition under which a patent will be granted which otherwise would have to be denied for double patenting. Much of the content of the [USjPTO rules is “substantive” in this respect. The regulation clearly relates to application processing within the [USjPTO in a manner consistent with statutory and case law, which is its principal business.”
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.