Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co.’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.3d 1368 · 2000
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd Smc Corporation Smc Pneumatics Inc (2000), Bayer Ag Bayer Corporation v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation Elan Corporation Plc (2000)
19 federal appellate · 15 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 McNally v. United States · Hammerschmidt v. United States · Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari · Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States · Humana Inc. v. Mary Forsyth et al.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The duty at issue in this case is the duty of candor, not the duty of translation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[IJnformation 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 patenta-bility. 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]y submitting the entire untranslated . . . reference to the PTO along with a one-page, partial translation focusing on less material portions and a concise statement directed to these less material portions, [the applicant] left the examiner with the impression that the examiner did not need to conduct any further translation or investigation.”
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.