In Re Jack Emert and Robert D. Lundberg

How courts have described this case

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

• applying the one-way test because the applicant “had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application,” “was responsible for the delays in prosecution,” and “orchestrated the rate of prosecution”
• although the court appeared to focus first on which test applied at the second step of the analysis, the court also examined carefully “the characterization of the relation between the two claims,” and any differences between them
• under a one-way analysis, “the court must determine whether the claims of the application define an obvious variation of the claim in the earlier issued patent,” and if not, the application claims fail for obviousness-type double patenting
• in a full-scale application of the one-way test, only the claims of the two patents were considered, without reference to any “prior art” as pertinent to the determination of whether or not the claims of the application were obvious over the claims of an earlier issued patent
• identifying the same analysis for a one-way test
• identifying the same two tests

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).