In re Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] wagering game is, effectively, a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the distribution of the cards.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. · Eyetalk365, LLC v. Zmodo Tech. Corp. Ltd.

2. “the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. 2. Representative Claim Finally, we reject Appellant's argument on appeal that the Board improperly treated claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (Rule 41.37). Appellant's appeal brief to the Board included two claim group headings under its § 101 argument: one under which all rejected claims were discussed generally, and another under which Appellant merely quoted claim elements in dependent claims 10, 18, 24, and 26 ( e.g. ,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

3. “directed to rules for conducting a wagering game”), and there is nothing inherent in the Alice test that would limit it to computer software. 28 . Earlier, as noted supra, the government had moved for summary judgment on its patent-ineligibility contentions. The court had granted that motion in part, i.e., as”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hitkansut LLC v. United States