In Re Alex Zletz’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2023
1 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. · United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co. · Cashell v. United States · Tandon Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission · In re Prater
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.
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. The issued claims are the measure of the protected right. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”
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.