Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 F.3d 1291 - Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Gaymar Industries, Inc.

Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Gaymar Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

181 F.3d 1291 · 1999

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
March 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 18 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. (2003), Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd Smc Corporation Smc Pneumatics Inc (2000)

13 federal appellate · 18 district ·

5301999200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-Cross

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A CIP application contains subject matter from a prior application and may also contain additional matter not disclosed in the prior application. . . . Different claims of such an application may therefore receive different effective filing dates.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he prosecution history of a parent application may limit the scope of a later application using the same claim term.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Different claims of [a CIP] application may therefore receive different effective filing dates.... Subject matter that arises for the first time in [a] CIP application does not receive the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.”
    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.