2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Process Control Corporation v. V. Hydreclaim Corporation, Defendant-Cross.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Process Control Corporation v. V. Hydreclaim Corporation, Defendant-Cross Anchor | green | “efiniteness and enablement are analytically distinct requirements , even though both concepts are contained in 35 u.s.c. 112 .” | 3 |
| 2 | Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. | green | “appellants' arguments appear to be based on the wrong legal standard, i.e., written description or enablement as opposed to indefiniteness.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.