Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 F.2d 1103 - In Re Albert H Brigance

In Re Albert H Brigance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
July 2005
most recently cited

5 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd. · Shatterproof Glass Corporation v. Libbey-Owens Ford Company · In re Caveney · Dl Auld Company v. Chroma Graphics Corp · TP Laboratories, Inc. v. Professional Positioners, Inc.

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

  1. “Factors we have considered include: the length of the test period; whether any payment was made for the invention; whether there is any secrecy obligation on the part of the user; whether progress records were kept; whether persons other than the inventor conducted the asserted experiments; how many tests were conducted; and how long the test period was in relation to test periods of similar devices, [footnote omitted] This list of factors is by no means all inclusive, but merely serves as a basis for objective analysis under section 102(b).”
    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.