Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
120 F.3d 1253 · 1997
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 59 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc. (1998), Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2008)
32 federal appellate · 59 district · 2 state decisions
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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Jp Stevens Co Inc v. Lex Tex Ltd Inc · Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. · Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. Lester A. Haug, Don W. Schmid and Herman Gunther · Fmc Corporation v. Manitowoc Company 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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Under this section, information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpa-tentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of pat-entability. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpat-entable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a patentee facing a high level of materiality and clear proof that it knew or should have known of that materiality, can expect to find it difficult to establish `subjective good faith' sufficient to prevent the drawing of an inference of intent to mislead.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The more material the omission or the misrepresentation, the lower the level of intent required to establish inequitable conduct, and vice versa.”
9 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.