Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A party must prove invalidity for lack of written description by clear and convincing evidence.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. · Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

2. “In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc. · Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc.

3. “A claim is sufficiently enabled even if 'a considerable amount of experimentation' is necessary, so long as the experimentation 'is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed.' " Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc. , 782 F.3d 671 , 684 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Wands , 858 F.2d at 737 ). Although "an inoperable invention is not enabled ... the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.