In re Biedermann’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.3d 329 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Delaware District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · Dickinson v. Zurko · In re Kahn · In re Kubin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ultimate criterion [before the court] is whether the appellant has had before the P[atent and] Trademark] 0[fflce] a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection____ We cannot let the [agency] shortcut this procedure and deprive appellants of their due process rights.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“finds facts not found by the examiner regarding the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and these facts are the principal evidence upon which the [PTAB]'s rejection was based,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether the [PTAB] relied on a new ground of rejection is a legal question that we review de novo.”
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.