General Foods Corporation v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle’s Empirical Analysis
972 F.2d 1272 · 1992
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Eli Lilly And Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (2001), Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission (1993)
13 federal appellate · 14 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 Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Loctite Corporation v. Ultraseal Ltd · Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc. · Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl · Application of Virgil W. Vogel and Paul W. Vogel
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“, for it is not; all that is claimed is the process consisting of the combination of all three steps. Such a claim, therefore, creates no patent right or monopoly in step A, no right to prevent others from using step A apart from the combination of steps A-B-C. Step A is not”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he determining factor in deciding whether or not there is double patenting is the existence vel non of patentable difference between two sets of claims. The phrases actually used in the opinion include “patentably distinguishable,” “patentable distinctions,” and “whether such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” They are all equivalent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It should be amply clear by now that the decaffeination invention and the caffeine recovery invention are separate and distinct inventions, directed to different objectives, and patentably distinguishable one from the other.”
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.