Cross v. Iizuka’s Empirical Analysis
753 F.2d 1040 · 1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Moleculon Research Corporation v. Cbs Inc (1986), Fiers v. Revel (1993)
3 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119
Relies on Brenner v. Manson · Madrid v. Lawyers Title Insurance · Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc. · Raytheon Company v. Roper Corporation · Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Opinions of our predecessor court have recognized the fact that pharmacological testing of animals is a screening procedure for testing new drugs for practical utility. This in vivo testing is but an intermediate link in a screening chain which may eventually lead to the use of the drug as a therapeutic agent in humans. We perceive no insurmountable difficulty, under appropriate circumstances, in finding that the first link in the screening chain, in vitro testing, may establish a practical utility for the compound in question. Successful in vi-tro testing will marshal resources and direct the expenditure of effort to further in vivo testing of the most potent compounds, thereby providing an immediate benefit to the public, analogous to the benefit provided by the showing of an in vivo utility.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fiers v. Revel · In re Ziegler“practical utility for the invention is determined by reference to, and a factual analysis of, the disclosures of the application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ziegler
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.