Robintech, Inc. v. Chemidus Wavin, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Lear, Inc. v. Adkins · Lewis v. United States · Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. · Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“along with the patent rights under the license agreement somehow differentiates the case from one of pure patent misuse. We affirm the District Court's rejection of this argument, at least as applied to the facts of this case. Of course, the patentee is not abusing the patent laws insofar as he exacts territorial restrictions for use of unpatented know-how, but here the offending clause 1(d) controls the sale of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“provisions of the license. It may be that the issue was properly before the District Court and that the court was correct in rejecting plaintiff's counterclaim for failure of proof of plaintiff's own performance. Since the record is too sparse on this matter, we vacate the District Court's denial of plaintiff's counterclaim and remand for further proceedings on the issue of compliance with the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Robintech, Inc., supra at 834. The conclusion of misuse was based on the court's finding that clause 1(d) of the licensing agreement to which the Sands-Broome patent was subject, extended Chemidus' patent monopoly on an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.