Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 984 F.2d 1164 - Fiers v. Revel

Fiers v. Revel’s Empirical Analysis

984 F.2d 1164 · 1993

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Price v. Symsek (1993), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010)

34 federal appellate · 8 district ·

4801993200020102020decided

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 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd. · Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar · Atlas Powder Company v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours & Company · Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.

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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,' not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention,”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc. · Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co.
  2. “promote disclosure of inventions, not of research plans.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 249 F. Supp. 2d 216 - University of Rochester v. GD Searle & Co., Inc. · 866 F. Supp. 439 - Brown v. Regents of the University of California
  3. “an adequate written description of DNA requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it; what is required is a description of the DNA itself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co. · Noelle v. Lederman

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.