Celgene Corp. v. Peter’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.3d 1342 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 143 · 35 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 303 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980) · 35 U.S.C. § 311 · 35 U.S.C. § 316
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Phillips v. AWH Corp. · Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co · Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich · Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the [Patent Office] could reconsider the validity of issued patents on particular grounds, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.