Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 17 district ·

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

1. “every limitation recited in the claim appears in the accused product, i.e., the properly construed claim reads on the accused product exactly.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 712 F. Supp. 2d 1080 - In Re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation · 821 F. Supp. 2d 1135 - In Re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Lit.

2. “As the district court correctly stated, the claim language “indicates that the invention’s chemical components should be limited to the precise ranges set forth therein.” Jeneric[/Pentron Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc.], 1999 WL 66537 , at [ (D.Conn. Feb 03, 1999) ]. The district court’s claim interpretation finds support in claim construction principles enunciated by this court in other cases. In general, “[a] term such as ‘about’ is not subject to [ ] a precise construction ... but is dependent on the factual situation presented.” W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1280 , 6 USPQ2d 1277, 1282 (Fed.Cir.1988). Without broadening words that ordinarily receive some leeway, see Modine Manufacturing Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 , 37 USPQ2d 1609, 1615 (Fed.Cir.1996), the precise weight ranges of claim 1 do not “avoid [] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter,” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 , 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed.Cir.1995). This construction, assigning numerical precision to composition ranges, is particularly appropriate when other variables in the same claims explicitly use qualifying language. See Modine Mfg., 75 F.3d at 1551 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 498 F. Supp. 2d 1131 - Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.

3. “1. Reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. 2. Prospect of irreparable harm. 3. Balance of hardships in favor of injunction. 4. Impact of the injunction on the public interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 309 F. Supp. 2d 972 - Lopes v. INTERNATIONAL RUBBER DISTRIBUTORS, INC.