Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 F.2d 313 - Lunati v. Barrett

Lunati v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis

104 F.2d 313 · 1939

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
January 1968
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1968

3 federal appellate ·

501939194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Brown v. Piper · Dunbar v. Myers · Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad · Brown v. Piper · D'Arcy Spring Co. v. Marshall Ventilated Mattress Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[4] The claims in suit must be narrowly construed within the prin ciple so often applied in this court that where claims define an element in terms of form, location, or function, thereby creating an express limitation, where that limitation pertains to the inventive step and imports a substantial function which the patentee considered of importance, the court cannot be permitted to say that other forms which the inventor thus declared not equivalent are so to be treated. D’Arcy Spring Co. v. Marshall Ventilated Mattress Co., 6 Cir., 259 F. 236, 240 ; Hollingshead Company v. Bassick Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 73 F.2d 543, 548 ; Directoplate Corp. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 6 Cir., 51 F.2d 199 , and our recent decision in Valjean v. Perfection Stove Co., 6 Cir., 103 F.2d 60 . Whether our conclusion be based upon estoppel in patent office proceedings or upon a limitation voluntarily inserted in the claims to avoid prior art seems to us unimportant. The result in claim con-construction is the same.” (Emphasis added.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.