Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 851 F.3d 1365 - In re Chudik

In re Chudik’s Empirical Analysis

851 F.3d 1365 · 2017

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
June 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Topliff v. Topliff · In re Schreiber · Net Moneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc. · Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]hough our review of an anticipation finding is deferential, we have not hesitated to reverse the Board when substantial evidence does not support its findings”
    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.