Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G.’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.3d 1090 · 1998
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc. (1998), Prima Tek II Llc Highland Supply Corporation Highland Manufacturing and Sales Company Prima Tek v. A-Roo Company a-Roo Company (2000)
23 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Waterman v. Mackenzie · Rite-Hite Corporation Hmh Hoj Rb We v. Kelley Company Inc · Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks · Vaupel Textilmaschinen Kg v. Meccanica Euro Italia Spa · Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Industries, 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““would unjustifiably expand the number of people who are authorized to sue. Parties could justify the premature initiation of an action by averring the court that their standing through assignment is imminent. Permitting non-owners and licensees the right to sue, so long as they eventually obtain the rights they seek to have redressed, would enmesh the judiciary in abstract disputes, risk multiple litigation, and provide incentives for parties to obtain assignment in order to expand their arsenal and the scope of litigation. Inevitably, delay and expense would be the order of the day.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.”
2 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.