Amsted Industries Incorporated v. Buckeye Steel Castings Company’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 178 · 1994
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 22 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp. (1998), WMS Gaming Inc. v. International Game Technology (1999)
16 federal appellate · 22 district · 1 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 284 · 35 U.S.C. § 285 · 35 U.S.C. § 287 · 35 U.S.C. § 292
Relies on Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Rita v. United States · Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6 · Aetna Life Insurance v. Lavoie
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]otice must be of “the infringement,” not merely notice of the patent’s existence or ownership. Actual notice requires the affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he correct approach to determining notice under section 287 must focus on the action of the patentee, not the knowledge of the infringer.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dunlap thus established that notice must be an affirmative act on the part of the patentee which informs the defendant of infringement.”
4 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.