In re Edwards

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that in the context of the case before it, “this translates into whether the parent application provides adequate direction which reasonably leads persons skilled in the art to the later claimed compound”
• description of process for making claimed compound was adequate, since described process “will inherently produce ... the claimed compound”
• “The function of the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

• University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., Monsanto Company, Pharmacia Corporation, and Pfizer Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-02-13· cited 117×
• In Re Walter Kaslow and Uniform Product Code Council, Inc. (Uppc), Intervenor
  Federal Circuit· 1983-05-17· cited 95×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-07-15· cited 94×
• Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Gary W. Boone
  Federal Circuit· 1998-08-26· cited 71×
• Yoshihiro Fujikawa, Mikio Suzuki, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Mitsuaki Sakashita and Masaki Kitahara v. Sompong Wattanasin, (Two Cases)
  Federal Circuit· 1996-08-28· cited 70×
• Kennecott Corporation v. Kyocera International, Inc. And Kyoto Ceramic Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-12-22· cited 38×
• Dethmers Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Equipment Mfg. Co.
  N.D. Iowa· 1998-09-29· cited 35×
• Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Input Graphics, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1985-05-20· cited 29×
• In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse and David S. Riddle
  Federal Circuit· 1991-12-31· cited 23×
• Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
  D. Kansas· 1984-04-18· cited 19×
• Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2004-10-15· cited 11×
• Barnett v. United States
  Court of Claims· 1984-10-30· cited 10×
• Eric C. Bigham v. Wagn O. Godtfredsen
  Federal Circuit· 1988-09-21· cited 9×
• National Business Systems, Inc. v. AM International, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 1982-08-26· cited 6×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Incorporated
  Federal Circuit· 2002-07-15· cited 2×
• Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.
  C.D. California· 1994-09-01· cited 2×
• Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.
  S.D. California· 1994-12-01· cited 1×
• Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
  D. South Carolina· 1983-04-18· cited 1×
• In Re Robert M. Hunter
  Federal Circuit· 1995-06-19

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumuller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred Bander
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-22· cited 106×
• In re Wertheim
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1976-08-26· cited 89×
• Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. Spurlin
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-05-27· cited 46×
• In re Smith
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-08-02· cited 43×
• In re Smith
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-05-18· cited 36×
• In re Driscoll
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-10-06· cited 33×
• Application of Roland Ralph Dileone and Howard Robert Lucas
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-02-11· cited 29×
• In re Gardner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-04-05· cited 22×
• Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-07-01· cited 20×
• In re Skoll
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1975-10-23· cited 20×
• In re Gardner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-06-14· cited 15×
• In re BLASER
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-06-09· cited 12×
• Application of Hugh Harper Gibbs and Richard Norman Griffin
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-02-11· cited 7×
• In re Salem
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-04-21· cited 7×
• Flynn v. Eardley
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-06-28· cited 6×