View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.3d 962 · 1997
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc. (2001), Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc. (2003)
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on Catlin v. United States · Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard · Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries · Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc.
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction— (1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States ... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title except [cases involving only copyright, mask work or trademark claims without patent claims].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] district court decision imposing Rule 11 sanctions is not final, and hence not appealable, until the amount of the sanction has been decided ....”
1 later decision 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.