In re Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• “Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement of § 112 must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
• “Precisely how close the description must come to comply with § 112 must be left to case-by-case development”
• “Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement of § 112 must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
• disclosure of genus and one species not sufficient description of intermediate subgenus
• disclosure of genus and one species was not sufficient description of intermediate subgenus

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Vas-Cath Incorporated and Gambro, Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, and Quinton Instruments Company
  Federal Circuit· 1991-07-29· cited 365×
• Crown Operations International, Ltd. And Marshall H. Krone v. Solutia Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-06-10· cited 153×
• Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-09-19· cited 152×
• Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2002-07-15· cited 94×
• Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-03-29· cited 60×
• In Re Leslie N. Wilder, James C. Whitney and Gary G. Matison, and Lanier Business Products, Intervenor
  Federal Circuit· 1984-06-20· cited 54×
• In Re Alex Zletz
  Federal Circuit· 1990-02-07· cited 46×
• In re Smith
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-08-02· cited 43×
• In re Bass
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-03-15· cited 36×
• Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-04-13· cited 29×
• Wagoner v. Barger
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-08-24· cited 27×
• In re Fielder
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1973-01-18· cited 26×
• Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 1981-10-13· cited 22×
• In re Herschler
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1979-02-01· cited 21×
• In re Edwards
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1978-01-12· cited 20×
• Lizardtech v. Earth Resource Mapping [Revised Order]
  Federal Circuit· 2006-01-05· cited 18×
• In re Wertheim
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1981-04-09· cited 18×
• In re Johnson
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1977-06-16· cited 15×
• Snitzer v. Etzel
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-09-14· cited 14×
• Hunt v. Treppschuh
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1975-10-16· cited 12×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• H. F. Campbell Company (Formerly H. F. Campbell Construction Company) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  Sixth Circuit· 1971-06-09· cited 40×
• Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz Risse
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-15· cited 34×
• Application of Arthur H. Ahlbrecht
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-04-08· cited 26×
• Application of Josef Fried
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1963-02-13· cited 22×
• Application of Walter Grimme, Werner Keil and Heinrich Schmitz
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1960-02-09· cited 21×
• Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-07-01· cited 20×
• Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents v. Frederick C. Bersworth and the Dow Chemical Company
  D.C. Circuit· 1958-02-28· cited 12×
• Application of Paul v. Brower and John F. Fuzek
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1970-11-25· cited 9×
• Application of Roland Ralph Dileone
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-02-11· cited 7×
• Application of Abner B. Stryker, Jr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-01-14· cited 6×
• In re Hyson
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1972-01-27· cited 5×
• In re Cavrich
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1971-12-16· cited 4×