In Re Klein

How courts have described this case

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

• “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination un- der § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed inven- tion.”
• “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination un- der § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed inven- tion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2019-11-08· cited 20×
• Lkq Corporation v. Gm Global Technology Operations LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2024-05-21· cited 12×
• Scientific Plastic Products, Inc. v. Biotage AB
  Federal Circuit· 2014-09-10· cited 8×
• I.E.E. International Electronics & Engineering, S.A. v. TK Holdings Inc.
  E.D. Michigan· 2014-10-23· cited 1×
• Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Thorley Industries, LLC
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-12-19· cited 1×
• In re Gough
  Federal Circuit· 2012-01-26
• Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-03-19

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1943-02-01· cited 3,975×
• Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
  Supreme Court· 1966-02-21· cited 3,371×
• In Re Werner Kotzab
  Federal Circuit· 2000-06-30· cited 114×
• In Re Carl D. Clay
  Federal Circuit· 1992-06-10· cited 93×
• In Re Alberto Lee Bigio
  Federal Circuit· 2004-08-24· cited 64×
• Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-03-21· cited 52×
• In Re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-08-01· cited 44×