Martin v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis
823 F.2d 500 · 1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Lawrence B. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. (1997), PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2008)
4 federal appellate · 1 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. § 112
Relies on Southland Corp. v. United States · Lindemann Maschinenfabrik Gmbh v. American Hoist and Derrick Company · Langenegger v. United States · In re Wertheim · Peter J. Degeorge v. Donald R. Bernier
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure. . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be sufficiently clear that persons of skill in the art will recognize that [he] made the invention having those limitations.”
2 later decisions 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.