In re Gardner

How courts have described this case

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

• “Under these circumstances, we consider the original claim in itself adequate ‘written description’ of the claimed invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-03-22· cited 436×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-07-15· cited 94×
• Lnp Engineering Plastics, Inc. And Kawasaki Chemical Holding Co., Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc. (Trading as Rtp Company), Defendant-Cross
  Federal Circuit· 2001-12-21· cited 87×
• Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-03-29· cited 60×
• In re Smith
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-08-02· cited 43×
• In re Edwards
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-01-12· cited 20×
• Allergan USA, Inc. v. Msn Laboratories Private Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2024-08-13· cited 9×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Incorporated
  Federal Circuit· 2002-07-15· cited 2×
• Cleeton v. Hewlett-Packard Company
  Fourth Circuit· 1973-04-11
• In Re XENCOR, INC.
  Federal Circuit· 2025-03-13
• Goss v. MAN Roland, et al.
  D. New Hampshire· 2008-03-28

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In re Gardner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-04-05· cited 22×
• Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe Gray
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1962-07-25· cited 10×
• Application of Alfred Marzocchi and Nicholas S. Janetos
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1968-05-09· cited 1×