In Re Klaus Heck’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2006
1 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. Adams · In re Wertheim · In re Rinehart · In re Samour
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to use them together when a differential in wearing away quality was desired, even though appellant's particular purpose was different from that of [the prior art].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Diane M Dillon“very narrow, directly related to the automotive camshafts with which Heck's invention is concerned, and zeroes in on the difference in the wearing-away of hardened and less hardened materials of cams”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Diane M Dillon
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.