Utter v. Hiraga’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 993 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995), Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991)
9 federal appellate · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119
Relies on Atlas Powder Company v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours & Company · Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc. · Coleman v. Dines · In re Kaslow · In re Rasmussen
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A specification may, within the meaning of § 112 p 1, contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without describing all species that claim encompasses.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably convey[ ] to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specification shall contain a written description of the invention.”
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.