Customs and Patent Appeals· 6/24/1976
In re Angstadt
Citations
- 537 F.2d 498
- 190 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 214
- 1976 CCPA LEXIS 152
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- deciding that applicants “are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims even in an unpredictable art” and that the disclosure of forty working examples sufficiently described subject matter of claims directed to a generic process
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baldwin, Lane, Markey, Miller, Rich
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantFederal Circuit· 1983-11-14· cited 366×
- Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Alamo Explosives Company, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1984-12-27· cited 264×
- The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and CompanyFederal Circuit· 1997-10-24· cited 260×
- Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Genetics Institute, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1991-05-20· cited 256×
- In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., and Hubert J.P. SchoemakerFederal Circuit· 1988-09-30· cited 251×
- Studiengesellschaft Kohle Mbh, as Trustee for the Max-Planck-Institut Fur Kohlenforschung v. Eastman Kodak CompanyFifth Circuit· 1980-07-08· cited 100×
- Peter J. Degeorge v. Donald R. BernierFederal Circuit· 1985-07-19· cited 75×
- In Re Mark A. Vaeck, Wipa Chungjatupornchai and Lee McIntoshFederal Circuit· 1991-10-21· cited 73×
- Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. LillyE.D. Texas· 2017-08-25· cited 21×
- Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2012-05-04· cited 16×
- In re JohnsonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1977-06-16· cited 15×
- Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2004-10-15· cited 11×
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp.D. Minnesota· 1985-06-24· cited 10×
- Barnett v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1984-10-30· cited 10×
- In re SichertCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1977-12-15· cited 10×
- In re ColianniCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1977-09-15· cited 7×
- Hyatt v. IancuD.C. Circuit· 2018-07-31· cited 6×
- Morphosys AG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.D. Delaware· 2019-01-25· cited 5×
- Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.D. Massachusetts· 2013-03-08· cited 5×
- Eli Lilly and Co. v. SICOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.S.D. Indiana· 2010-03-31· cited 4×
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court· 1916-12-18· cited 176×
- IVES v. HamiltonSupreme Court· 1876-01-24· cited 84×
- Application of Joseph D. FisherCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1970-06-11· cited 67×
- Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1970-03-12· cited 62×
- Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. JanoskiCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-01· cited 53×
- Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Richard C. HortonCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-15· cited 46×
- Application of Gordon Henry Cook and Peter Arnold MerigoldCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-07-01· cited 29×
- Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. WoodwardCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1971-07-01· cited 20×
- In re ArmbrusterCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-03-27· cited 20×
- Application of Gene R. WilderCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1970-08-13· cited 16×
- Application of Robert M. ColeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1964-01-23· cited 15×
- In re MercierCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1975-05-15· cited 14×
- In re GeerdesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1974-02-21· cited 11×
- In re Nguyen Dinh-NguyenCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1974-02-28· cited 11×
- Application of Klaus SchulzeCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1965-06-17· cited 9×
- In re MayhewCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1976-01-15· cited 8×
- Application of William C. Rainer, Edward M. Redding, Joseph J. Hitov, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. StewartCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1965-07-01· cited 7×
- Application of William C. Rainer, Edward M. Redding, Joseph J. Hitov, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. StewartCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-02· cited 6×
- Application of George v. EltgrothCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1970-01-08· cited 6×
- In re JoliotCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1959-07-20· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.