In Re Paolo Longi et al’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (1994), Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials America, Inc. (1996)
16 district · 1 state decisions
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 Rodriguez v. Lash · In re Piasecki · In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags · In re Robeson · Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the patent principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. [Citation omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the issuance of the claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The narrower question in the current case is whether, in the absence of a terminal disclaimer, the Board erred in affirming the examiner’s determination that the claimed subject matter is merely an obvious modification of the invention claimed in the commonly-owned applications and the Mayr II patent, in light of the four prior art references. Of course, a double patenting rejection presupposes a patent. Thus, we start by examining the claims of the Mayr II patent, and by assessing the prior art references in order to ascertain whether the PTO made out a prima facie case of obviousness. Then we must look to the Albizzati declaration to determine whether the Board correctly concluded that this sole rebuttal evidence was insufficient to overcome the prima facie case. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 , 223 USPQ 785 (Fed.Cir.1984). The basic concept underlying the claims in all the commonly-owned applications and patent is the formation of a highly active Ziegler-type catalyst by first combining a titanium compound with an activated form of magnesium halide. The particular species of titanium compound can be selected from titanium trihalides (Mayr I application), titanium oxyhalides (Galli application), or titanium tetrahalides (Mayr II patent). The difference between the claims in the instant application, on the one hand, and the Mayr II claims, on the other, is the recitation of the nitrogen-containing titanium compound in the present application. Thus, the question becomes wh”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.